Assessing cow-calf welfare. Part 1: Benchmarking beef cow health and behavior, handling; and management, facilities, and producer perspectives

Probability and number of bruises in bovine carcasses according to animal type, handling and transport

The aim of this study was to evaluate pre-slaughter risk factors on the probability of bruising and the number of bruises in different regions of the bovine carcass. The study evaluated the data from 4061 batches of slaughtered cattle, totalling 199,026 carcasses, from Hereford and Aberdeen Angus animals in crosses with continental European breeds and Zebu cattle. The factors that caused injury were sex, handling conditions (score), vehicle type, vehicle load density (kg/m2), travel time (minutes), travel distance (kilometres), physiological maturity (dentition), animal reactivity (score), and carcass fat (score). The type of vehicle had the greatest influence on the probability of carcass bruising and affected all carcass cuts. More bruising occurred in vehicles with a greater load capacity. A higher chance of bruising was seen in groups of older animals, those with an excitable temperament and, especially, in groups of females. Higher load densities during transport resulted in a greater chance of bruising occurring in all cuts except the hindquarters. Distance and travel time are unstable in the models, but also detrimental, increasing the probability of bruising and the number of bruises in the various cuts. The results of this study suggest that good practices in the welfare, handling and transport of the animals, as well as training the personnel responsible for their handling, should be adopted to minimise the risk of injury at different locations on the carcass.

A Clinical Trial on the Welfare Effects of Administering Meloxicam to 10 to 21 Day Dairy Calves Following Caustic Paste Disbudding

Caustic paste disbudding (CPD) is widely utilized for calves, which has been known to result in adverse effects on the calves and ethical concerns related to animal welfare, despite the use of local anesthetics. The administration of meloxicam has been demonstrated to provide benefits in alleviating pain and inflammation in juvenile calves under 9 d old and subjected to CPD. Nonetheless, there is a scarcity of literature documenting the beneficial impact of meloxicam in alleviating pain in calves aged over 9 d that have undergone CPD. Therefore, the objective of this clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of administering meloxicam and lidocaine for cornual nerve block together in mitigating the deleterious effects of CPD, as opposed to using lidocaine alone in calves older than 9 d. Thirty Holstein calves, aged between 10 and 21 d, were enrolled and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatments: lidocaine alone (Placebo), lidocaine and normal saline treatment before CPD, and lidocaine plus meloxicam, lidocaine and 0.5 mg/kg of meloxicam treatment prior to CPD. The researchers were blind to the treatment of calves to control the subjective error. The occurrences of actions associated with pain, which included head shaking, head rubbing, ear flicking, tail flicking, kicking, and head passing through the fence, were recorded. Physiological performance, including the respiration rate, heart rate, rectal temperature, mechanical nociceptive threshold (MNT), food intake, and daily activity level, was monitored. Hematological conditions were ascertained through the use of routine blood tests and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The generalized linear mixed model was employed to analyze the data. The research findings revealed that applying the CPD procedure significantly elevated the frequencies of tail flicking, head shaking, and kicking, resulted in increases in respiratory rate, heart rate, daily active steps, and food intake and a decrease in MNT, and led to alterations in hematological markers, including platelet counts, mean platelet volume, prostaglandin E2, constitutive nitric oxide synthase, and hydroxyl radical. Considerable benefits, such as lower heart rates, higher food intake, and MNTs, as well as lower levels of white blood cell counts, lymphocyte counts, hemoglobin, mean platelet volume, prostaglandin E2, tumor necrosis factor-α, constitutive nitric oxide synthase, malondialdehyde, and hydroxyl radical, were observed in the calves that received meloxicam treatment in response to CPD. The findings of the study indicate that the co-administration of lidocaine and meloxicam provides obvious benefits in mitigating pain, inflammation, and oxidative stress in calves aged over 9 d and undergoing CPD. This endorses the use of meloxicam during the disbudding and dehorning procedures of calves.

Practical Application of the Five Domains Animal Welfare Framework for Supply Food Animal Chain Managers

The author has worked as a consultant with global commercial supply managers for over 20 years. The focus of this commentary will be practical application of The Five Domains Model in commercial systems. Commercial buyers of meat need simple easy-to-use guidelines. They have to use auditors that can be trained in a workshop that lasts for only a few days. Auditing of slaughter plants by major buyers has resulted in great improvements. Supply chain managers need clear guidance on conditions that would result in a failed audit. Animal based outcome measures that can be easily assessed should be emphasized in commercial systems. Some examples of these key animal welfare indicators are: percentage of animals stunned effectively with a single application of the stunner, percentage of lame animals, foot pad lesions on poultry, and body condition scoring. A farm that supplies a buyer must also comply with housing specifications. The farm either has the specified housing or does not have it. It will be removed from the approved supplier list if housing does not comply. These types of easy to assess indicators can be easily evaluated within the four domains of nutrition, environment, health and behavioral interactions. The Five Domains Framework can also be used in a program for continuous improvement of animal welfare.

Benchmarking animal handling outcomes on cow-calf operations and identifying associated factors

The assessment of animal handling is commonly included in cattle care programs. The guidelines set in the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Beef Checkoff funded Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program are often used for assessing handling on feedlot, stocker, and cow-calf operations. There is limited information about animal handling on cow-calf operations. Thus, the objectives of this study were to: (1) quantify handling outcomes on cow-calf operations and compare them to national BQA program thresholds, and (2) investigate factors associated with handling outcomes. Researchers visited 76 operations across the United States to observe the following outcomes, adapted from the BQA program, during the processing of cows or yearling heifers: Prod Use, Miscatch, Vocalization, Jump, Slip/Stumble, Fall and Run. One hundred cows or less (depending on herd size) were observed moving through a restraint system at each operation. Other information specific to the animal type, facilities, and management were also gathered to be explored as potential predictors of handling outcomes. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics on an operation basis and analyzed with multi-predictor ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis tests to assess the relationship between outcomes and possible explanatory factors. Predictors included in the final analyses were: BQA certification (BQA), animal temperament (TEMP), region (REGION), chute style (CHUTE), and visual contact with humans (VISUAL). The 76 operations were sampled in 24 states (Central, n = 17; East, 30; West, 29), with herd sizes ranging from 10 animals to more than 5,000 animals. A total of 4,804 animals were observed. There were a substantial number of operations exceeding BQA thresholds for Prod Use (34.0%, 26), Miscatch (46.0%, 35), and Fall (31.6%, 24); the averages of these outcomes also exceeded the BQA thresholds (< 10%, 0%, and 2%, respectively). There was an association between Prod Use and several explanatory factors, including SIZE (P = 0.072), TEMP (P = 0.001), VISUAL (P = 0.027), and BQA (P = 0.104). Miscatch, Vocalization, and Fall all had single associated factors (REGION, P = 0.019; REGION, P = 0.002; VISUAL, P = 0.002, respectively). The VISUAL and TEMP factors had an association with the majority of outcomes. The findings suggest an opportunity for improving handling outcomes, which could be achieved through education and training support regarding the importance of animal handling on-farm. Future work should consider additional aspects of facilities and management that could impact cattle handling outcomes.

Benchmarking Based on Regularly Recorded Claw Health Data of Austrian Dairy Cattle for Implementation in the Cattle Data Network (RDV)

While benchmarking is already used for the assessment of performance gaps in cattle herd management and welfare concerns, its application to quantifying claw health performance is relatively new. The goal here was to establish a benchmarking system for claw health in Austrian dairy cattle. We used electronically registered claw health data of cows from 512 dairy herds documented by professional hoof trimmers, culling data from the same herds, and locomotion scores taken at regular milk performance testings in 99 dairy herds during 2020. Mean, median and the 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles of the incidences of risk of lameness, 13 common claw lesions, and the annual culling risk directly related to claw and limb disorders were used as key performance indicators. Only validated data sets were used and participating trimmers and locomotion scorers had to pass interobserver reliability tests with weighted Cohen's kappa values ≥ 0.61 indicating substantial interobserver agreement. This claw health benchmarking system is intended to be used henceforth in the transnational cattle data network (RDV) by all participating farmers and is also available for veterinarians and consultants, with the agreement of respective farmers.

Human–Animal Interactions with Bos taurus Cattle and Their Impacts on On-Farm Safety: A Systematic Review

Cattle production necessitates potentially dangerous human–animal interactions. Cattle are physically strong, large animals that can inflict injuries on humans accidentally or through aggressive behaviour. This study provides a systematic review of literature relating to farm management practices (including humans involved, facilities, and the individual animal) associated with cattle temperament and human’s on-farm safety. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used to frame the review. Population, Exposure, and Outcomes (PEO) components of the research question are defined as “Bovine” (population), “Handling” (exposure), and outcomes of “Behaviour”, and “Safety”. The review included 17 papers and identified six main themes: actions of humans; human demographics, attitude, and experience; facilities and the environment; the animal involved; under-reporting and poor records; and mitigation of dangerous interactions. Cattle-related incidents were found to be underreported, with contradictory advice to prevent injury. The introduction of standardised reporting and recording of incidents to clearly identify the behaviours and facilities which increase injuries could inform policy to reduce injuries. Global differences in management systems and animal types mean that it would be impractical to impose global methods of best practice to reduce the chance of injury. Thus, any recommendations should be regionally specific, easily accessible, and practicable.

The Visual, Auditory, and Physical Environment of Livestock Handling Facilities and Its Effect on Ease of Movement of Cattle, Pigs, and Sheep

The visual, auditory, and physical environment livestock are handled in will have an effect on the ease of movement through races and corrals that are used for veterinary treatment, loading trucks or at slaughter houses. When livestock refuse to move easily through a handling facility, people are more likely to use electric goads (prods) or other aversive methods to move them forward. This is a major animal welfare concern. Modification of the environment can improve livestock movement and reduce aversive handling methods. In existing facilities used for handling cattle, pigs or sheep, simple changes such as, adding a light to a dark race entrance or reducing loud intermittent noise may improve livestock movement. Eliminating distractions such as, a noisy truck near a lairage can also facilitate cattle movement and reduce stopping or turning back. In an outdoor facility, sharp shadows on the floor were more likely to be associated with cattle stopping compared to no shadows or soft faint shadows. The installation of small solid walls to prevent approaching animals from seeing either moving equipment, vehicles or people in front of them may also improve forward livestock movement. Non-slip flooring is essential to prevent slipping and falling during handling. Rebuilding or completely redesigning an existing facility is often not required. Outcome based indicators should be used to assess continuous improvements in handling. Some of the commonly used measurable of handling are slipping and falling, stopping, turning back, vocalization during handling and electric prod use. Collecting data both before and after an environmental modification can be used to determine its effectiveness.

Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures

This paper aims to develop standards for a welfare assessment protocol by validating potential categorisation thresholds for assessing beef farms in various beef cow-calf production systems in Namibia. Forty measures, combined from a New Zealand-based protocol plus Namibia-specific measures, are applied to 55 beef farms (17 commercial farms, 20 semi-commercial and 18 communal village farms) during pregnancy testing, and a questionnaire guided interview. The categorised measures on a 3-point welfare score (0: good, 1: marginal, and 2: poor/unacceptable welfare) are subsequently compared with the derivation of thresholds based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of herds for each measure. The overall combined thresholds of continuous measures across the three farm types show 10/22 measures that posed welfare compromise across Namibia, whereas commercial farms have 4/22 measures, and semi-commercial and communal village farms have 12/22 and 11/22, respectively, with high thresholds. Most measures-imposed thresholds are retained because of significant importance to the welfare of animals and preventiveness of the traits, while leniency was given to adjust good feeding and mortality measures to signify periods of drought. Handling measures (fearful, falling/lying) and abrasions thresholds are adjusted to reflect the temporary stress caused by infrequent cattle handling, and faulty yard designs/design and possible cattle breed influence on handling. Hence, Namibia needs prioritised investigation of underlying contributing factors and remediation to reduce the high thresholds.

Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia: Part 1: Comparison Between Farm Production System's Effect on the Welfare of Beef Cows

A proposed animal welfare assessment protocol for semi-arid rangeland-based cow-calf systems in Namibia combined 40 measures from a protocol developed for beef cattle in New Zealand with additional Namibia-specific measures. Preliminary validation of the protocol had been undertaken with five herds in one semi-commercial village. The aim of the current study was to apply this protocol and compare animal welfare across three cow-calf production systems in Namibia. A total of 2529 beef cows were evaluated during pregnancy testing in the yards of 17 commercial, 20 semi-commercial, and 18 communal (total: 55) herds followed by an assessment of farm resources and a questionnaire-guided interview. Non-parametric tests were used to evaluate the difference in the welfare scores between the production systems. The results indicated a discrepancy of animal welfare between the three farm types, with a marked separation of commercial farms from semi-commercial, and communal village farms in the least. The differences in these production systems were mainly driven by economic gains through access to better beef export market for commercial farms and semi-commercial villages, as well as by the differences in the available grazing land, facility designs/quality, and traditional customs in the village systems. The results indicate an advantage of commercialization over communalization.

The Stockman's Scorecard: quantitative evaluation of beef cattle stockmanship

An animal’s action, or inaction, is the direct result of a stockman’s action or inaction. The Stockman’s Scorecard is a novel observation instrument that has been proven to be a valid and reliable tool to measure the quality of beef cattle stockmanship. Specific handler actions have been weighted based on their perceived negative relationship to cattle stress from handling. The purpose of this article is to 1) document the initial use of the scorecard in a beef cattle feedlot setting and 2) provide further support to its validity by establishing an association with other quantitative and qualitative means of evaluating stockmanship. The Scorecard was used at 39 beef feedlots in Texas between March 2018 and April 2019. Eighty-four stockman were observed, and the average score received was 84.5 (SD = 14.73, range = 20 to 100). The most frequent mistakes observed were as follows: fills crowd pen/tub over half full (n = 39), slow to remove pressure (n = 29), uses unnecessary noise (n = 25), stands in front and taps rear (n = 24), and fails to regulate animal flow through a pinch point (n = 22). A strong negative association (ρ = −0.51) was found between the points deducted from the Noise and Physical Contact theme of the Scorecard and the number of animals touched with an electric prod from the BQA Feedyard Assessment. Moderate negative associations were found between the Scorecard final score and the number of animals that vocalize in the chute prior to procedures (ρ = −0.31). Those stockmen that scored above average on the Scorecard were qualitatively observed to be calm and quiet while working with the cattle (Kappa = 0.44). The qualitative disposition of cattle had little effect on the final score of stockmen using the Scorecard (Kappa = 0.17). The use of the Scorecard in a feedlot setting has demonstrated that as stockman scores decrease, there is an increase in the number of negative actions toward cattle and a negative behavioral response of the cattle themselves. Establishment of an association between a stockman’s score using the Stockman’s Scorecard and the animal-based observations from the BQA Feedyard Assessment further strengthens the validity of the Stockman’s Scorecard as a tool to measure the quality of beef cattle stockmanship. The Scorecard has application as a tool to identify specific stockmanship deficiencies in order to target stockmanship training.

Effect of Animal Welfare on the Reproductive Performance of Extensive Pasture-Based Beef Cows in New Zealand

One key area where animal welfare may relate to productivity is through reproductive performance. This study assesses welfare on 25 extensively managed pastoral New Zealand beef farms, and explores the relationship between welfare and reproductive performance. Relationships between welfare measures and key reproductive performance indicators (pregnancy rate, weaning rate, mating period and bull: cow ratio) are investigated using an exploratory principal components analysis and linear regression model. Seven welfare measures (thinness, poor rumen fill, dirtiness, blindness, mortality, health checks of pregnant cows and yarding frequency/year) showed a potential influence on reproductive performance, and lameness was retained individually as a potential measure. Mean pregnancy rates, in both 2018 (PD18) and 2017 (PD17), were ~91% and mean weaning rate was 84%. Of the welfare measures, only lameness had a direct association with pregnancy rate, as well as a confounding effect on the association between mating period and pregnancy rate. The bull: cow ration (mean 1:31) and reproductive conditions (dystocia, abortion, vaginal prolapse) did not influence pregnancy and weaning rates. In the study population, there was no clear association between welfare and reproductive performance, except for the confounding effects of lameness.

Animal Welfare Assessment: Can We Develop a Practical, Time-Limited Assessment Protocol for Pasture-Based Dairy Cows in New Zealand?

Simple Summary

Systematic welfare assessment protocols are increasingly being used as a tool to demonstrate animal welfare and to drive improvements within the industry. Despite dairy products from New Zealand trading on the ‘green’ image of extensive pasture-based farms, dairy cattle welfare is not routinely assessed on most New Zealand farms, and there is no industry-recognised protocol for such assessment. Drawing on protocols and studies from across the world, this project aimed to create a science-based but practical assessment of dairy cow welfare that could be undertaken as a single one-day visit with a focus on assessment around milking time. After in-farm testing, this project identified 32 assessments which could form a part of such a protocol. Although further testing is required, this protocol could form the basis of a standardised assessment of dairy cow welfare on New Zealand dairy farms.

Abstract

Despite being a leading producer and exporter of dairy products, New Zealand has no industry-recognised welfare assessment protocol. A New Zealand-specific protocol is essential, as almost all dairy farms in New Zealand are pasture-based and housing is rarely used. Therefore, protocols developed for intensive cows are not suitable. The aim of this study was to develop a simple yet practical welfare assessment protocol that could be used to assess the welfare of a dairy herd during one visit timed to occur around milking. Six welfare assessment protocols and four studies of dairy cattle welfare assessments that had some focus on dairy cattle welfare at pasture were used, along with the New Zealand Dairy Cattle Code of Welfare, to identify potential assessments for inclusion in the protocol. Eighty-four potential assessments (20 record-based and 64 that needed assessing on-farm) were identified by this process of welfare assessments. After screening to exclude on-farm assessments that were not relevant, that had only limited practical application in pasture-based dairy cows or that required more time than available, 28 on-farm assessments remained, which were put together with the 20 record-based assessments and were tested for feasibility, practicality and time on two pasture-based dairy farms. Assessments were then identified as suitable, suitable after modification or not feasible. Suitable and modified assessments were then included in the final protocol alongside additional measures specific to New Zealand dairy farms. The final protocol included 24 on-farm assessments and eight record-based assessments. Further testing of these 32 assessments is needed on more dairy farms across New Zealand before the protocol can be used to routinely assess the welfare of dairy cows in New Zealand.

Developing an Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Cows in Extensive Beef Cow-Calf Systems in New Zealand. Part 1: Assessing the Feasibility of Identified Animal Welfare Assessment Measures

Simple Summary

It is not feasible to transfer animal welfare assessment protocols developed for intensive systems to extensive systems or from rangeland- to pasture-based cattle because each system needs a different protocol. In a previous study, we combined selected measures from the Welfare Quality protocol for beef cattle and the UC Davis Cow-Calf Health and Handling protocol with additional measures specific to New Zealand to create a welfare assessment protocol for pasture-based cow–calf systems that had 50 measures. In this study, the feasibility of this protocol was assessed during routine yardings of cows and a questionnaire. Individual measures that were deemed unsuitable were eliminated or modified. At the end of the process, a robust, achievable protocol with 32 measures for use on pasture-based extensive cow–calf farms was created.

Abstract

Potential measures suitable for assessing welfare in pasture-based beef cow–calf systems in New Zealand were identified from Welfare Quality and UC Davis Cow-Calf protocols. These were trialled on a single farm and a potential protocol of 50 measures created. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of the measures included in this protocol on multiple farms in order, to develop a credible animal welfare assessment protocol for pasture-based cow–calf farms systems in New Zealand. The assessment protocol was trialled on 25 farms over two visits and took a total of 2.5 h over both visits for a 100-cow herd. The first visit in autumn included an animal welfare assessment of 3366 cows during pregnancy scanning, while the second visit in winter included a questionnaire-guided interview to assess cattle management and health, and a farm resource evaluation. Through a process of eliminating unsuitable measures, adjustments of modifiable measures and retaining feasible measures, a protocol with 32 measures was created. The application of the protocol on the farms showed that not all measures are feasible for on-farm assessment, and categorisation of identified animal welfare measures into scores that indicate a threshold of acceptable and non-acceptable welfare standards is necessary.

Developing an Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Cows in Extensive Beef Cow-Calf Systems in New Zealand. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures

Simple Summary

Animal welfare assessment protocols use different methods to categorise and score animal welfare. This study has demonstrated the feasibility of developing standards for a welfare assessment protocol of cow-calf farms in New Zealand by validating potential categorisation thresholds for measures of assessment on 25 beef farms. Imposed thresholds of categorisation and derived thresholds based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of farms for each measure were compared to see which was the most appropriate to the range of observations and the significance of the welfare implications of the measure. For measures with significant welfare implications, the stricter threshold was retained, while derived thresholds appeared more appropriate for commonly occurring traits but of less welfare importance for the production system at hand.

Abstract

The intention of this study was to develop standards for a welfare assessment protocol by validating potential categorisation thresholds for the assessment of beef farms in New Zealand. Thirty-two measures, based on the Welfare Quality and the University of California (UC) Davis Cow-Calf protocols, plus some indicators specific to New Zealand, that were assessed during routine yardings of 3366 cattle on 25 cow-calf beef farms in the Waikato region were categorised on a three-point welfare score, where 0 denotes good welfare, 1 marginal welfare, and 2 poor/unacceptable welfare. Initial categorisation of welfare thresholds was based upon the authors’ perception of acceptable welfare standards and the consensus of the literature, with subsequent derived thresholds being based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of farms for each measure. Imposed thresholds for lameness, dystocia, and mortality rate were retained in view of the significance of these conditions for the welfare of affected cattle, while higher derived thresholds appeared more appropriate for dirtiness and faecal staining which were thought to have less significant welfare implications for cattle on pasture. Fearful/agitated and running behaviours were above expectations, probably due to the infrequent yarding of cows, and thus the derived thresholds were thought to be more appropriate. These thresholds provide indicators to farmers and farm advisors regarding the levels at which intervention and remediation is required for a range of welfare measures.

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

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.

Factors associated with seroprevalence of bovine anaplasmosis in Mississippi, USA

Anecdotally, Veterinary Feed Directive prescriptions in the southeastern United States (U.S.) are written most often for treatment and prevention of bovine anaplasmosis (BA) but seroprevalence estimates and factors associated with this disease are currently unavailable in Mississippi (MS). Bovine anaplasmosis, a tick-borne disease of cattle caused by Anaplasma marginale, remains an economically important disease in U.S. The lack of recent seroprevalence of BA throughout the U.S. makes accurate assessment of production losses incurred by the cattle industry in the U.S. difficult, if not impossible to estimate. This study was aimed at determining the seroprevalence of and factors associated with BA in MS. Data were obtained from an active survey of 207 beef cows slaughtered between May 2013 and December, 2014 as well as from reviewing 5182 Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratories (VDLs) records of specimens from MS submitted for BA testing between 2002 and 2018. From the active surveillance, the overall observed apparent seroprevalence of BA in MS with cELISA was 28.99% (95% CI: 23.23 - 35.50%) while the estimated true seroprevalence was 29.02% (22.74 - 36.07%). However, from the laboratory records, the overall apparent period seroprevalence of BA in MS between 2002 and 2018 irrespective of diagnostic assay used was 16.72% (15.73 - 17.76%) and yearly increase in the diagnosis of BA followed a significant trend (P < 0.0001). With cELISA, the apparent seroprevalence of BA was 22.11% (20.78 - 23.49%) and the estimated true seroprevalence was 21.62% (20.18 - 23.11%). However, with CFT, the apparent seroprevalence of BA was 13.50% (10.75 - 16.81%) and the estimated true seroprevalence was 47.90% (36.30 - 61.87%). Factors associated with positive BA results were age, cattle type, and quarter of the year the specimens were submitted. The odds of the outcome were 22 as high in adults, 27 times as high in beef cattle, and 2 times as high between October to December in comparisons to juveniles, dairy cattle, and between April to June, respectively. Cattle population in the counties was not associated with positive BA results. Current records from the VDLs appear to accurately estimate the seroprevalence of BA in MS and thus serves as a reliable surveillance tool BA in the state. Because the burden of BA appears to be distributed throughout the state, future prevention and control measures for BA should focus on the identified putative risk factors and be intensified throughout MS.

Survey of cow-calf producer perspectives on management strategies and industry challenges. Part 2. Marketing and selection decisions1

The objective of this study was to benchmark how cow-calf producers were marketing their calves, their priorities when selecting replacements, and if producers saw value in a quality assessment focusing on animal handling and care. A total of 1,414 responses from cow-calf producers in 44 states were collected through a survey conducted in partnership with BEEF. Thirty questions were asked of respondents to gather demographic information, establish at what age and through what avenue respondents were marketing their calves, and gauge respondent perspectives on selection decisions, pain management and a quality assessment outlining handling and care guidelines. The percentage of respondents who marketed their calves at certain ages varied by herd size (P < 0.001). Respondents with 50 head or less or more than 1,000 head most commonly retained their calves through finishing and respondents with 51 to 200 head and 201 head to 500 head more frequently backgrounded and then sold their calves. Respondents’ top priorities when selecting bulls were calving ease, followed by growth and feed efficiency traits. When selecting females, top priorities were reproductive efficiency, followed by mothering ability. The percentage of respondents using pain management differed by whether a veterinarian had offered to administer a drug for pain management (P < 0.001). 13.5% of respondents answered yes, and a veterinarian had offered to administer a drug for pain management when castrating or dehorning. Of those 13.5% who responded yes pain management had been offered, and 54.55% of respondents chose to use a pain relief method. A higher percentage of respondents that precondition also more frequently indicated that they used a pain relief method when castrating or dehorning, though it was still a low percentage (P = 0.006). Overall, 46.3% of respondents saw value in handling and care guidelines and 54.9% of respondents saw value in a program including source and age verification, a vaccination plan, and handling and care guidelines. Respondents who were Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) certified had a beef cow inventory of 501 to 1,000 head, who preconditioned their calves and backgrounded them before selling, and who lived in the West most commonly saw value in a quality assessment outlining handling and care guidelines.

Seroprevalence of bovine Anaplasmosis in Georgia

Anecdotally, Veterinary Feed Directive prescriptions in many states in the southeastern United States (U.S.) are written most often for treatment and prevention of bovine anaplasmosis (BA). This tick-borne disease of cattle caused by Anaplasma marginale remains an economically important disease in U.S. However, there are no prevalence estimates of this disease in Georgia (GA). Thus, this study was aimed at determining the seroprevalence of BA in GA. In an active cull beef cow screening for BA, 293 beef cows were sampled from one cattle auction barn and one slaughterhouse between May 2013 and September 2014. These cows originated from 6 of 159 counties in GA. The top 3 counties sampled were Gordon (241 samples), Carroll (25 samples), and Emanuel (12 samples). Of the 293 sampled beef cows, 13 were positive and 280 were negative for BA. Hence, with competitive ELISA, the overall observed apparent seroprevalence of BA in GA was 4.44% (95% CI: 2.61-7.44%) while the estimated true seroprevalence was 2.62% (95% CI: 5.2-5.87%). The top 2 prevalent counties were Carroll and Gordon with apparent seroprevalence of 8% (95% CI: 2.22-24.97) and 4.78% (95% CI: 2.69-8.36), respectively and estimated true seroprevalence of 6.45% (95% CI: 0-25.37) and 2.99% (95% CI: 0.54-6.89), respectively. Although not significant, counties with specimen submissions for BA testing had a greater cattle population and number of cattle farms than counties without specimen submissions. Nevertheless, future prevention and control measures for BA should out of caution target counties with ≥5000 total cattle heads.

Factors associated with seroprevalence of bovine anaplasmosis in Texas

Bovine anaplasmosis (BA), caused by Anaplasma marginale, is an economically important tick-borne disease of cattle in the United States (U.S.) and worldwide. Anecdotally, Veterinary Feed Directive prescriptions in the southeastern U.S. are written mostly for treatment/prevention of BA. However, there are no recent temporal seroprevalence estimates of BA in Texas (TX). Thus, this study was aimed at determining the seroprevalence of and factors associated with BA in TX. Data were obtained from an active slaughter survey (n = 215) performed between August and December 2014 as well as from reviewing Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratories (TVMDLs) records of specimens submitted for BA testing from January 2002 to June 2012 (n = 15,460). Irrespective of the assay used, the overall apparent seroprevalence of BA in TX between 2002 and 2012 was 15.91% (95% CI: 15.34 - 16.50%) and the yearly increase in seroprevalence followed a significant trend (P < .0001). With cELISA, the apparent seroprevalence of BA was 13.49% (95% CI: 9.56 - 18.7%) and 13.02% (95% CI: 9.74 - 17.18%) for the slaughter survey and TVMDLs records between October and December 2011, respectively. Whereas the estimated true seroprevalence for the same period was 12.35% (95% CI: 8.04 - 18.05%) and 12.78% (95% CI: 9.19 - 17.30%), respectively. Factors associated with positive BA results were age, breed, diagnostic assay used, year and quarter of the year the specimens were submitted. The odds of the outcome were 1.5 times as high when cattle were adults (vs juvenile). In comparison to other breeds, the odds of the outcome were 11.57, 7.16, and 2.5 times higher in Hereford, Angus, and mixed breeds, respectively. When compared to 2003, the odds of the diagnosis of BA was approximately 2 times as high in 2010 but 3 times as high in 2002, 2005, and 2011 and approximately 4 times as high in 2006 and 2007. In comparison to the duration from October to December, the odds of the outcome were approximately 1.5 as high from January to March and from July to September durations. Counties with specimen submissions for BA testing had a significantly greater cattle population (p = .0061) and number of cattle farms (p < .001) than counties without specimen submissions. Subsequent prevention and control measures for BA should target these factors and should prioritize on counties with higher cattle population in the eastern part of TX. Furthermore, TVMDLs records appear sufficient for the surveillance of BA in TX.

Factors associated with Seroprevalence of Anaplasma marginale in Kentucky cattle

Bovine anaplasmosis (BA) is tick-borne disease of cattle caused by Anaplasma marginale and it remains an economically important disease in the United States (U.S.). We have anecdotal information that Veterinary Feed Directive prescriptions in Kentucky (KY) are written most often for treatment and prevention of BA. However, there are no recent prevalence estimates of this disease in KY. Thus, this study was aimed at determining the seroprevalence of and factors associated with BA in KY. Data were obtained from an active slaughter survey (n = 232) performed between May and July 2013 as well as from reviewing The University of Kentucky Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory (UKVDL) records of specimens submitted for BA testing from 2002-2012 (n = 2,573). With competitive ELISA, the apparent prevalence of BA in KY was 10.78% (95% CI: 7.41-15.42%) and 11.58% (95% CI: 10.31-12.98%) for the slaughter survey and laboratory records, respectively. Whereas the estimated true prevalence was 9.44% (95% CI: 5.65-14.48%) and 10.3% (95% CI: 8.92-11.8%), respectively. From the laboratory records, factors associated with positive BA results were age, breed, whether specimens were submitted singularly or as a group, year and quarter of the year the specimens were submitted. The odds of the outcome were 5 times as high when cattle were adults (vs juvenile) and almost 4 times as high when specimens were submitted singularly (vs group). In comparison to Holstein breed, the odds of the outcome were 3.5 and 2.5 times higher in Angus and mixed breeds, respectively. The odds of a diagnosis of BA varied in an undulating pattern by year of sample submission. When compared to 2011, the odds of a diagnosis of BA was approximately 3 times as high in 2005, 2008, and 2009 and approximately 5 times as high in 2004, 2006, and 2012. In comparison to the duration from January to March, the odds of the outcome were almost 20 times as high from July to September but 10 times as high from October to December durations. Counties with specimen submissions for BA testing had a significantly greater cattle population and number of cattle farms than counties without specimen submissions. Future prevention and control measures for BA should target these factors and should be weighted more on counties with higher cattle population. Furthermore, current records from the UKVDL appear sufficient for the surveillance of BA in KY.

Mobility Scoring of Finished Cattle

Lameness is among the most important welfare and production issues affecting dairy cattle. Recently, it has received significant research emphasis. Certain events in 2013 within the cattle industry heightened the focus on mobility issues in finished cattle. Scoring systems are needed in the finished cattle industry to capture and measure mobility issues at packing facilities. The North American Meat Institute Animal Welfare Committee helped facilitate the creation of a scoring system to evaluate mobility of cattle at packing plants, providing the cattle industry with a tool to benchmark and improve the welfare of finished cattle.