Influence of corral and handling modifications on the behavior and blood parameters of Nellore beef cattle

Maria Lucia Pereira Lima ^a,*, Joao Alberto Negrao ^a,c, Claudia Cristina Paro de Paz^a,c, Temple Grandin^d

^aInstitute de Zootecnia, Centro APTA Gado de Corte, Sertaozinho, SP, Caixa Postal 63. Brazil. 14160-970.
^bDepartment of Basic Sciences, Faculty of Animal Science and Food Engineering, University of Sao Paulo, Av. Duque de Caxias Norte 225, Pirassununga, SP, Brazil.
^cDepartment of Genetics, FMRP-USP (School of Medicine of Ribeirao Preto - University of Sao Paulo), Av. Bandeirantes 3900, Ribeirao Preto, SP, 140349-900, Brazil.
^dDepartment of Animal Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA.
^*Correspondent author email: Lucia.plima@hotmail.com
Fax/Phone: +55 (16) 3637 1849 +55 (16) 99154 885

ABSTRACT

This experiment was conducted to investigate cattle handling systems. The objective was to evaluate the behavior, blood cortisol and lactate levels of Nell ore steers handled in both the traditional way and after introduction of calm handling methods and simple corral modifications. People using traditional methods yelled, hit cattle, used both dogs and electric prods. The corral modifications consisted of blocking the vision of the steers when the handler stands inside the animal's flight zone, eliminating contrast of light and dark or shadows and puddles. During calm handling, the stockperson was asked to be calm and was not allowed to scream or hit the animals. Electric cattle prods or dogs inside the corral were not allowed. A total of382 Nellore steers aged 14 to 20 months from five different ranches were studied. In the first evaluation, the behavior of the animals was evaluated and blood samples were collected after traditional handling. After corral modification and introduction of calm handling procedures, the same animals returned (6 days later) for a second assessment and blood collection from the jugular vein for serum cortisol determination. The animals were evaluated using visual scores. Entry behavior (EB) into the restraint device was evaluated by observing whether the steers walked, trotted, or tan. Chute temperament (CT) was assessed by determining whether the animal was very calm, calm, agitated.very agitated and struggling to escape. Exit speed (ES) was evaluated with scoring of walk, trot or run. After corral and handling modifications, the animals exhibited lower EB (P < 0.0001), CT (P < 0.0001), and ES (P < 0.0001). Serum cortisol (P < 0.0001) and lactate (P = 0.0358) were significantly lower after the modifications. Mean serum cortisol was 47.87 vs 32.49 mg/dL and lactate was 37.08 vs 33.65 mg/dL before and after corral and handling modifications, respectively. Good handling practices and corral reconstruction based on animal welfare principles can reduce stress in cattle.

Key words: cattle stress, good practice, welfare

1. Introduction

Nellore cattle raised on extensive pastures that have little contact with humans are generally shy and show a fear reaction when handled in corrals. The stress caused by handling is related to many factors (Grignard et al., 2001; Grandin, 2016). There is a need to improve welfare during handling. Several studies have shown that Zebu cattle are more nervous and shy than taurine breeds (Becker and Lobato, 1997; Heamshaw and Morris, 1984) and carcass losses are consequently greater, in both male or female cattle (Mendonca et al., 2017). The challenges may be greater on large Zebu beef cattle farms.

The way the handler interacts with the animals will result in calm or agitated behavior because animals react to the positive or negative stimulus from people (Hansson and Lagerkvist, 2014). Ellingsen et al. (2014) conducted a study of 110 farms in Norway, where the same observer scored the handler's attitude and reactions towards the animals. The authors concluded that the behavior and attitude of the handlers directly influences the fear reactions of cattle. One recommendation to solve this problem of lack of contact is to acclimate the animals to well-trained handlers (Ellingsen et al. 2014, Probst et al., 2013). On the other hand, in places where the cattle population is large and few persons work with the animals, any conditioning to calm down the animals is very difficult. Probst et al. (2013) conditioned cattle by gentle touching in the head and neck region five weeks before slaughter. The treatment improved the behavior of the animals, reducing avoidance distance and blood lactate concentration, but did not affect cortisol concentration at the time of slaughter. However, according to these authors, when handled on another farm, animals conditioned to good handling often exhibit worsening of their behavior because of changes in the way people work. This fact highlights the importance of proper employee training.

Modification of existing handling facilities and the use of calm practices will reduce handling problems such as balking during entry into the restraint device and improve animal flow (Grandin, 2012). This will reduce the time required to work the cattle.

According to Simon et al. (2016), the use of an electric prod increases the risk of the animals balking, falling in the chute or running when exiting of the chute. Their use should be avoided. Petherick (2005) states that, in large companies, the attitudes of both the breeder and the animal handler are important to ensure both good animal welfare and quality handling. Training of employees is important and techniques should be taught based on cattle behavior. This will help improve habits, beliefs and attitudes. The calm interaction between humans and animals is fundamental to establish high-quality handling. Nervous and fearful animals are often aggressive towards people which lead handlers to believe that they should treat aggressive animals roughly. This causes accidents and losses to humans and animals. Handling should provide a calm and safe work environment, regardless of the agitated response of animals (Petherick, 2005; Grandin, 2016). Tense, fearful and aggressive animals exhibit high plasma levels of cortisol (Grandin, 2016). Stockman et al. (2012) found elevated serum lactate levels in cattle at slaughter when the animals were more nervous or anxious.

The objective of this study was to compare traditional cattle handling with yelling, dogs, and electric prods to calm handling where yelling is stopped and dogs and electric prods are removed. In the calm treatment, simple corral modifications were also made.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Location and animals

The experimental procedures of this study were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Animal Science Institute of Sao Paulo State, Brazil (protocol 192-14). The study was carried-out on five different cattle farms (ranches) located in Central Brazil between Goias city (15° 94'S and 50° 14'W) and Jussara city (15° 81'S and 50° 83'W), in Goias State, Brazil (Ranches.I, 2, 4, and 5), and Barra do Garcas city, in Mato Grosso State, Brazil (Ranch 3, 15°40'S and 510 64'W). The climate is classified as tropical, with the rainy season occurring during late spring and summer (November to March) and the dry season during autumn and winter (April to October). The data were collected during sunny winter days, similar for all ranches. The mean air temperature ranged from 20°C to 26 DC and relative humidity from 45% to 60%. The temperature humidity index (THI) ranged from 62 to 73.

A total of 382 Nellore steers (male and female) aged 14 to 20 months, with a live weight of 300 to 400 kg, were studied (Ranch 1: 82 steers, Ranch 2: 80 steers, Ranch 3: 107 steers, Ranch 4: 53 steers, and Ranch 5: 60 steers). Before and after the procedures, all animals were kept on palisade grass pasture (Brachiarta brizantha) with free access to natural shading, a water drinker, and mineral and vitamin mix supplement.

2.2. Corrals and handling

The data were collected in corrals surrounded by 1.8-meter high fences made of wood boards (spaced 15 em apart) on all five ranches (Figure 1). These corrals have the following divisions: pen, crowd pen, chute, and squeeze chute to restrain the animals. All restraint devices were made of wood. All steers had been handled prior to the experiment, usually vaccinations, administration of anthelmintic and weighing twice a year. On the ranches, the steers are moved from the pasture to the corral facilities by horse riders.

2.2.1 Treatments

Two treatments were applied: "poor corral and traditional handling" and "modified corra1 and calm handling". All experimental steers were individually evaluated twice during handling in the corrals. First, the animals were randomly submitted to the "poor corral and traditional handling" treatment, which consisted of handling the animals in the traditional way (use of dogs inside the corral, electric goads, running with horses, and shouting, pushing and hitting the animals). After blood collection, the steers were returned to the pasture and six days later they were submitted to the "modified corral and handling" treatment. After the first treatment, all animals were not handled for six days.

The modified corral and calm handling treatment consisted of changes made in the corrals to facilitate handling and training of caretakers to handle cattle quietly and calmly. The following change was made in the corrals: blocking the animal's vision when the handler stands next to the squeeze chute inside the animal's flight zone. A solid panel was installed similar to the methods of Muller et al. (2008) and Grandin (2012). Bright objects or objects with color contrast were eliminated. The puddles were filled with soil and disappeared (Figure 1). Shadows and darkness were eliminated in areas with contrasts of illumination by replacing ceramic with glass roof tiles or installing an electric lighting system.

After these changes had been made in the corral, a training session was held with the employees to explain the modifications of the corral and how to handle cattle in a calm and quiet manner. They were told to stop shouting, pushing, and hitting of cattle. Lessons about the flight zone were taught. Differences were explained between human and bovine eyes. How cattle perceive things and reflections that induce fear were also explained. In addition, the fear induced by dogs and electric prods was explained, as described by Grandin and Deesing (2008).

Dogs were kept far away from the corrals and the use of electric goads was not allowed. When necessary, the handlers used a flag to encourage the flow and walked slowly to move the animals, as described by Grandin and Deesing (2008).

2.2.2. Data recording

Behavioral assessment and blood collection were made in the squeeze chute during restraint of each animal. After the experimental procedure, all animals of the same livestock farm were returned together to the pasture.

The same trained observer recorded the individual behavior score of each steer in the squeeze chute and another trained person collected all blood samples on the five ranches. The scoring system used was adapted from previous studies (Voisinet et al., 1997; MacKay et al., 2013; Vetters et at, 2013) and included entry, chute and exit scores.

Entry and exit scores (1 to 3) were defmed as follows: (1) walk, a four-beat gait characterized by progression of the alternate lateral legs, i.e., each hoof takes off from and strikes the ground independently; (2) trot, a two-beat diagonal gait in which the legs move in diagonal pairs, but not quite simultaneously, and (3) run, a three-beat gait in which the front hooves strike the ground, one after the other in a fast manner, followed by the rear hooves.

The chute scores (1 to 5) obtained during blood collection were defined as: (1) very calm when the animal remains calm, with no movement of body or hooves; (2) calm when the animal moves its head and body gently; (3) agitatedwhen the animal moves a lot, including movement of the hooves, and gently shakes the body; (4) very agitated when the animal moves briskly, shaking the body arid moving the hooves simultaneously, and (5) struggling to escape means that the animal is panicky or infuriated and struggles all the time to escape from the restraint.

Blood samples were collected from the jugular vein in heparinized tubes and immediately placed on ice. Immediately after the corral work, the samples were centrifuged at 2100 g for 15 minutes at 4 °C and plasma was stored at -20°C until the time of cortisol and lactate analysis. Cortisol concentration was measured with an ELISA kit (Monobind, Inc., Lake Forest, CA, USA). The intra- and interassay coefficients of variation were 4.8% and 6.1%, respectively. Lactate concentration was measured by an enzymatic method using a commercial ELISA kit.

2.3. Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with the gamma model using PROC GENMOD (Generalized Linear Models) of the SAS program (SAS® Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). The model included the effects of treatment (poor corral and handling versus changed corral and handling), sex and ranch, and the interaction between treatment and ranch. In this model, the treatment effect was considered fixed, while the effects of the date of sampling and steer were considered random. The effect of sex was removed from the analysis model because it was not significant.

3. Results

The changes made in corral arrangement and animal handling had a significantimpact on both behavior and blood parameters of Nellore steers. Table 1 summarizes the behavior scores, including entry, exit and chute scores, and blood cortisol and lactate concentration of cattle during handling in the corrals. The results showed a significant effect of calm handling (P < 0.05) on all variables studied, which improved. There were interactions between treatment and ranch for entry score (P = 0.0159), chute score (P < 0.005), and exit score (P < 0.0001) of Nell ore steers.

The interactions between treatment and ranch are shown in Figure 2. For entry score, there was 1,10 treatment effect only for Ranch 1, although the score obtained before and after the changes was lower than the experimental mean (1.35 ± 0.58). The scores of Ranch 1 were l.29 and l.22 before and after treatment, respectively. Chute score was not affected by treatment only on Ranch 2 (Figure 1), with values close to the treatment mean (2.06 ± 1.05). There was no influence of treatment on exit score on two ranches, including Ranch 3 (l.22 vs l.24) with a lower score than the treatment mean (1.48 ± 0.67) and Ranch 5 (1.71 vs 1.63) with a higher score. On the other hand, an important difference in exit score was observed for Ranch 4 (2.21 vs l.23). No interaction between treatment and ranch was observed for cortisol or lactate concentration (Table 1), but there was an effect of ranch on both blood parameters. The cortisol and lactate concentrations obtained for each ranch are shown in Table 2. Higher cortisol concentrations were observed on Ranch 1, indicating that the animals on this farm were more nervous, although there was a decrease in cortisol after improved handling (76.3 vs 56.8 ng/mL). Lactate levels were also found to be higher on Ranch 1 compared to the other ranches despite a decrease in lactate after treatment (47.22 vs 36.18 mg/dL).

4. Discussion

According to Hansson and Lagerkvist (2014), the main problem is that farmers and employees develop their cattle handling methods based on their own needs and improvement in farm animal welfare will only occur if there is improvement in their own wellbeing. The authors concluded that the attitudes of the handlers are based on behaviors that were learned from persons who preceded the current ones on the same farm and that these behaviors are similar to those observed on other farms. Considering the results of our study, we agree with Hansson and Lagerkvist (2014) since the corrals and the handling methods adopted were closely similar on the various farms studied. The animals showed reactions due to fear and these reactions were interpreted by the handlers as bad behavior. The . handlers punished the animals showing poor behavior, usually with aggressive attitudes, hitting them and screaming. In our opinion, the changes in behavior proposed during employee training, with explanations about the fear reactions of the animals and about the need to change the behavior of people, improved the quality of the work of the persons involved. Work became slower and calmer, . thus being less tiring for the handlers and improving the flow of the animals inside the corral.

Tirloni et aL (2013) studied the influence of low-stress handling on cow reactivity. In that experiment, 66 cows were handled in a calm manner and 60 cows were handled aggressively. The results showed a significant difference in reactivity score during restraint (from 1 to 5, where 1 = very calm and 5 = highly reactive) between groups, which was 1.62 in animals handled in a calm manner and 2.12 in those handled aggressively. These results are similar to those found in the present study.

Analyzing the interactions between farm and behavior score, only one farm did not exhibit improvement in entry score (Ranch 1), which was already low, but chute and exit scores improved. On Ranch 2, no improvement in chute score was observed, while Ranch 3 and Ranch 5 did not exhibit any improvement in exit score. This finding might be explained by the fact that cattle react differently because of the history of each farm. Nevertheless, in general, improvement in at least two of the three behaviors was observed on each farm .

Hoppe et al. (2010) investigated 24 commercial beef cattle farms in Germany using scores similar to those employed in the present study. The authors found differences in chute score and exit score between breeds. The Limousin and Charolais breeds were more agitated, with mean chute scores of 2.95 and 2.78 and exits scores of 1.8 and 1.65, respectively. These scores are higher than those observed in the present study, even during handling prior to the changes when the animals were more agitated and stressed. Angus and Hereford cattle were calmer, with chute scores of2.50 and 2.05, respectively, values higher than those found in our study when the animals were more agitated. Schwartzkopf-Genswein et al. (2012), investigating evaluation techniques of cattle behavior during handling, reported a mean entry score of 1.25, reactivity score in the chute of 1.71, and exit score of 1.46. These authors studied 28 crossbred Angus steers, which are generally calm animals, and the results are similar to those obtained in the present study for animals handled after the corral modifications.

Gallo and Huertas (2016) demonstrated failure in the training of personnel that work with cattle on South American farms, where people tend to use aggressive strategies for animal handling, such as hitting the animals and twisting their tail, among other actions that cause pain. The factors cited by Gallo and Huertas (2016) were observed in the traditional handling and were completely banned when the improved corral and handling practices were adopted. The elimination of dogs and electric prods was an important change to reduce the fear of the animals during handling inside the corral, resulting in a decrease of cortisol and lactate levels.

Disanto etal. (2014) identified the main stress factors in 10 slaughterhouses in Italy. At all plants, the animals saw the movement of the personnel, which caused balking and delays in work. Five slaughterhouses had illumination problems. Perceiving a person inside the flight zone is very stressful for cattle that are unfamiliar with people and are being handled (Grandin, 2016). In the present study, improved illumination and blocking the animal's vision by closing the lateral sides of the fence so that the animals did not see the handlers inside the corral in areas close to the squeeze chute were important changes. These modifications resulted in a reduction of fear, improving animal behavior.

Andrade et al. (2001) compared the reactions of Brahman cows that used or not a mask to block their vision during handling in the chute, The use of the mask was alternated over the days of the experiment. There was an increase in blood cortisol levels in cows wearing the mask, demonstrating that the use of a mask increased stress. On the other hand, cows using the mask exhibited a better behavior during entrance into the chute and restraint, showing that the animals are emotionally less reactive during the procedures when they cannot see the people close to them. The observation of behavioral improvement agrees with the present results, proving that not seeing people reduces fear. Moreover, if blocking vision does not touch the animal, i.e., it is a fixed part of the corral, it is possible to reduce stress as demonstrated by the decrease in cortisol and lactate in the present study.

Woiwode et al. (2016) studied handling methods in Hereford steers and concluded that aversive procedures increase entry and exit speeds in the chute, as well as inadequate restraint. Injuries and losses occur when the animal is not restrained correctly, including a reduction in weight gain. Similar to the present study, Titto et al. (2010) also found a reduction of cortisol levels in feedlot Nellore steers, as well as in the reactivity score during restraint. Williams et al. (2016) observed an association between improved chute score and reduced exit velocity in feedlot animals, i.e., improvement in animal behavior during handling with decreasing cortisol and lactate levels, in agreement with the present results.

5. Conclusion

Small and simple modifications of the corral arrangement and calm handling methods result in calmer animals, and lower physiological stress.

Funding: This study had financial support from Fapesp grant no: 2013125355-6.

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

Andrade O., Orihuela, A., Solano J., Galina C.S., 2001. Some effects of repeated handling and the use of a mask on stress responses in Zebu cattle during restraint. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 71, 175-181. https://doi.org/10.1D16/S0168-1S91(00)00177-5.

Becker, B.G., Lobato, J.F.P., 1997. Effect of gentle handling on the reactivity of zebu crossed calves to humans, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 53,219-224. https://doi.org/l0.l016/S0168-1591(96)01091-X

Burrow, H.M., Seifert, G.W., Corbet, N.J., 1988. A new technique for measuring temperament in cattle. Proc. Australian Soc. Anim. Prod. 17, 154-157.

Disanto, C; Celano, G., Varvara, M., Fusiello, N., Fransvea, A., Bozzo, G., Celano, G.V., 2014. Stress factors during cattle slaughter. Italian J. of Food Saf. 3, 1682. DOI: 1O.4081/ijfs.2014.1682

Ellingsen, K., Colemanb, G.J, Lunda, V, Mejdell, C.M., 2014. Using qualitative behaviour assessment to explore the link between stockperson behaviour and dairy calf behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 153, 10-17. https://doi.org/l0.l016/j.applanim.2014.01.011

Gallo, C.B., Huertas, S.M., 2016. Main animal welfare problems in ruminant livestock during presiaughter operations: a South American view. Anim. 10,357-364. DOI: https://doi.org/l0.1017/S1751731115001597

Grandin, T., 2012. Auditing animal welfare and making practical improvements in beef-, pork- and sheep-slaughter plants. Anim. Welf. 21,29-34. DOI: https://doi.org/lO.7120/096272812X13353700593400

Grandin, T., 2016. Evaluation of the welfare of cattle housed in outdoor feedlot pens. Veterinary Anim. Sci. 1,23-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vas.2016.l1.001

Grandin, T., Deesing, M., 2008. Humane Livestock Handling, first ed. Storey Publishing, North Adms, Massachusetts.

Grignard, L., Boivin, X., Boissy, A., Neindre, P.L., 2001. Do beef cattle react consistently to different handling situations? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 71,263-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00187-8

Hansson, H., Lagerkvist, C.J., 2014. Defining and measuring farmers' attitudes to farm animal welfare. Anim. Weif. 23,47-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7120109627286.23.1.047

Heamshaw, R., Morris, C.A., 1984. Genetic and environmental effects on a temperament score in beef cattle. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 35, 723-733.

Hoppe, S., Brandt, H.R, Konig.S; Erhardt, G., Gauly, M. 2010. Temperament traits of beef calves measured under field conditions and their relationships to performance. J. Anim. Sci. 88, 1982-1989. doi:10.2527/jas.2008-1557

MacKay, J.R.D., Turner, S.P., Hyslop, J., Deag, J.M., Haskell, M.J., 2013. Short-term temperament tests in beef cattle relate to long-term measures of behavior recorded in the home pen. J. Anim. Sci. 91,4917-4924. doi:10.2527/jas.2012-5473

Mendonca, F.S., Vaz, R.Z., Vaz, F.N., Restle, J., Goncalves, G.B., Vara, C.C., 2017. Breed and carcass characteristics on losses by bruises and meat ph in beef of steers and culling cows. Cienc. Anim. Bras. 18, 1-10. DOI: 10.1590/l0S9-6891v18e-45295

Muller, R., Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S., Shah, M.A., Keyserlingk, G., 2008. Effect of neck injection and handler visibility on behavioral reactivity of beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 86, 1215-1222. doi:10.2527/jas.2007-0452

Petherick, J.C., 2005. Animal welfare issues associated with extensive livestock production: The northern Australian beef cattle industry. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 92,211-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.05.009

Probst, J.K., Hillmann, E., Leibera, F., Kreuzer, M., Neff, A.S., 2013. Influence of gentle touching applied few weeks before slaughter on avoidance distance and slaughter stress in finishing cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 144, 14-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.12.007

Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S., Shah, M.A., Church, J.S., Haley, D.B., Janzen, K., Truong, G., Atkins, R.P. and Crowe, T.J., 2012. A comparison of commonly used and novel electronic techniques for evaluating cattle temperament. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 92, 21-31. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas2011-040

Simon, G.E., Hoar; B.R., Ticker, C.B., 2016. Assessing cow-calf welfare. Part 2: Risk factors for beef cow health and behavior and stockperson handling. J. Anim. Sci. 94, 3488-3500. doi:10.2527/jas.2016-0309

Stockman, A.A., McGi1christ, P., Collins, T. ,Barnes, A.L., Miller, D., Wickham, S.L., Greenwood, P.L., Cafe, L.M., Blache, D., Wemelsfelder, F., Patricia A. Fleming, P.A., 2012. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of Angus steers during pre-slaughter handling and relationship with temperament and physiological responses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 142, 125-133. https://doi.org/l0.1016/j.applanim.2012.10.016

Tirloni, R.R.,Rocha, F.A., Lourenco, Martins, L.R., 2013. Influence of low-stress handling on reactivity score and pregnancy rate during fixed-time artificial insemination in Nellore cows. R. Bras. Zootec. 42, 471-474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982013000700002

Titto, E.A.L., Titto, C.G., Gatto, E.G., Noronha, C.M.S., Mourao, G.B., Nogueira Filho, J.C.M., Pereira, A.M.F., 2010. Reactivity of Nellore steers in two feedlot housing systems and its relationship with plasmatic cortisol. Livest. Sci.. 129, 146-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jlivsci.2010.01.0I7

Vetters, M.D.D., Engle, T.E., Ahola, J.K., Grandin, T., 2013. Comparison of flight speed and exit score as measurements of temperament in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci 91,374-381. doi:10.2527/jas.2012-5122

Voisinet, B.D., Grandin, T., Tatum, J.D., O'Connor, S.F., Struthers, J.J., 1997. Feedlot cattle with calm temperaments have higher average daily gains than cattle with excitable temperament. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 892-896. doi:l0.252711997.754892x

Williams, A.F., Boles, J.A., Herrygers, M.R., Berardinelli, J.G., Meyers, M.C., Thomson, J.M., 2016. Relationship between current temperament measures and physiological responses to handling of feedlot cattle. College of Agriculture and Extension Research Report. 55-61. http://msuextension.org/coa/documents/2016reports/ExitVelocityWilliams.pdf

Woiwode, R, Grandin, T., Kirch, B., Paterson, J., 2016. Effects of initial handling practices on behavior and average daily gain of fed steers. Int J. Livest. Prod., 7,12-18. DOI:10.5897/IJLP2015.0277

**Table 1 - Entry score, chute score, exit score, cortisol release, and lactate concentration of Nellore steers submitted to poor corral and handling and changed corral and handling.**
	Treatment		P value
	Poor corral and handling	Modified corral and calm handling	Treatment	Ranch	Interaction
Entry Score¹	1.47^a±0.01	1.25^b±0.01	<0.0001	<0.0001	0.0159
Chute Score²	2.32^a±0.01	1.78^b±0.01	<0.0001	<0.0001	0.0050
Exit Score¹	1.65^a±0.01	1.34^b±0.01	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
Cortisol (ng/mL)	47.87^a±1.36	32.49^b±1.37	<0.0001	<0.0001	0.1606
Lactate (mg/dL)	37.08^a±1.43	32.65^b±1.42	0.0358	<0.0001	0.2247

Results are the mean ± standard error of the mean.

¹ Entry and exit score (1 = walk; 2 = trot; 3 = run).

² Chute score during restraint (1 = calm, no movement; 2 = calm, little movement; 3 = agitated with gentle movements; 4 = harsh movements; 5 = struggling to escape).

Means followed by different superscript letters differ significantly (P < 0.05).

**Table 2 - Cortisol release and lactate concentration of Nell ore steers on each ranch where the study was conducted.**
	Ranch 1	Ranch 2	Ranch 3	Ranch 4	Ranch 5	Ranch 6
Cortisol (ng/mL)	66.5^a±2.01	34.6^c±1.84	29.4^c±1.58	30.4^c±3.07	43.1^b±2.55	<0.0001
Lactate (mg/mL)	41.9^a±1.95	37.2^b±1.78	26.6^c±1.52			<0.0001

Results are the mean ± standard error of the mean.

Means followed by different superscript letters differ significantly (P < 0.05).

Figure 1: Schematic drawing of the corral

Corral before changes: with fences, the animals see the handler and puddles inside the corral.

Corral after changes: with fences blocking the animal's vision and elimination of puddles.

Figure 2: Interaction between ranch and treatment for entry score (2.1), chute score (2.2), and exit score (2.3).
Means followed by the same lowercase letter to not differ significantly (P > 0.05) for treatments on each ranch separately.

Click here to return to the Homepage for more information on animal behavior, welfare, and care.