Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T03:02:10.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cattle handling and welfare standards in livestock markets in the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

N. G. GREGORY ,
T. BENSON  and
C. W. MASON
N. G. GREGORY*
Affiliation:
BBSRC and Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield AL9 7TA, UK
T. BENSON
Affiliation:
Humane Slaughter Association, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead AL4 8AN, UK
C. W. MASON
Affiliation:
Humane Slaughter Association, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead AL4 8AN, UK
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: ngregory@rvc.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Some fast food restaurants have introduced a trade embargo on beef sold through livestock markets on the grounds that welfare standards associated with live auction markets are worse than standards associated with direct sale to abattoirs. The current study examined the handling difficulties and welfare standards at 24 UK cattle and calf markets, and comparisons were made according to class of animal (mainly store or finished) and according to throughput of the market, <100 livestock units (LSU) per week, 100–300 LSU per week and >300 LSU per week. Handling problems examined included refusal to move, balking, slips, falls, impacts, inappropriate handling such as excessive use of a stick, hazardous jumping and confusion while loading onto vehicles. The most common difficulties were impacts, slips and falls during grading and when putting cattle up to the sale ring. Slipping was also common in finished cattle while they were in the ring, and they were prone to impacts when returning to a holding pen. Refusing to load onto vehicles after the sale was common in both finished and store cattle. Calves were prone to going down on their knees when moving onto the tailboards of vehicles. Of the markets, 0·47 had potential bruising or impact points in the grading facilities and 0·67 of the markets did not have a way of ensuring that legs did not get trapped between gates and gateposts if cattle attempted to jump out of a holding pen. In most other respects the prevalence of weaknesses in the facilities and problems during handling was low.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 147 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 345 - 354
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Corrier, D. E., Purdy, C. W. & DeLoach, J. R. (1990). Effects of marketing stress on fecal excretion of Salmonella spp. in feeder calves. American Journal of Veterinary Research 51, 866–869.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, A. (1996). Respiratory disease of feedlot cattle in central USA. Bovine Practitioner 30, 5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Council (2005). Council regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations. Official Journal of the European Union L003, 1–44.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council (1986). Report on the Welfare of Livestock at Markets. London, UK: Farm Animal Welfare Council.Google Scholar
Grandin, T. (1998). Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices in slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 212, 36–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T. (2001). Cattle vocalizations are associated with handling and equipment problems at beef slaughter plants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, N. G., Benson, T., Smith, N. & Mason, C. W. (in press). Sheep handling in livestock markets. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Horder, J. C., Strachan, R. T., Ramsay, W. R. & Burns, M. A. (1982). Bruising comparison of three methods of selling beef cattle. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 14, 593.Google Scholar
Jacobson, L. H. & Cook, C. J. (1998). Partitioning psychological and physical sources of transport-related stress in young cattle. Veterinary Journal 155, 205–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, K. C., Davies, D. H., Cullinane, S. L., Eddison, J. C. & Kirk, J. A. (2000). Taking lambs to the slaughter: marketing channels, journey structures and possible consequences for welfare. Animal Welfare 9, 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villarroel, M., Mariá, G. A., Sierra, I., Sañudo, C., Garćia-Belenguer, S. & Gebresenbet, G. (2001). Critical points in the transport of cattle to slaughter in Spain that may compromise the animals’ welfare. Veterinary Record 149, 173–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weeks, C. A., McNally, P. W. & Warriss, P. D. (2002). Influence of the design of facilities at auction markets and animal handling procedures on bruising in cattle. Veterinary Record 150, 743–748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welfare of Animals at Market Order (1990). The Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990. Statutory Instrument 1990, No. 2628, pp 1–11. Available online at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1990/Uksi_19902628_en_1.htm (verified 10/12/08).Google Scholar
Wythes, J. R. & Shorthose, W. R. (1984). Marketing Cattle: Its Effect on Liveweight, Carcases and Meat Quality. Australian Meat Research Committee Review No. 46. Sydney, Australia: Australian Meat Research Committee.Google Scholar