Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Assessment of risk factors contributing to carcass bruising in fed cattle at commercial slaughter facilities

Assessment of risk factors contributing to carcass bruising in fed cattle at commercial slaughter... Assessment of risk factors contributing to carcass bruising in fed cattle at commercial slaughter facilities t . l. lee, * C. D. Reinhardt,† S. J. Bartle,‡ C. I. Vahl,§ M. Siemens,# and D. U. Thomson║ *North American Meat Institute, Washington, DC 20036; †Reinhardt Nutrition Consulting, LLC, Katy, TX 77494; ‡Bartle Consulting, Manhattan, KS 66502; §Department of Statistics, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506; #Arrowsight, Mt. Kisco, NY 10549; and ║Department of Diagnostic Medicine & Pathobiology, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506 ABStrAct : Cattle injuries can occur during trans- categorized by location on the animal. Average trau- portation due to vehicle design, transport conditions, matic event prevalence per lot was 20.4% (± 1.11%). and loading or unloading procedures and lead to car- Average carcass bruise prevalence by lot was 68.2% cass bruising and economic loss due to decreased car- (± 1.15%). There was an interaction between breed cass value. The objectives of this study were to de- and trailer type when multiple linear regression was termine whether a relationship exists between trauma used to explore variables contributing to traumatic incurred during unloading and prevalence of carcass events observed at unloading (P ≤ 0.05). Traumatic bruising in finished beef cattle at commercial slaugh- events were not associated with prevalence of carcass ter facilities and determine related risk factors which bruising, while average carcass weight and breed were contribute to both trauma and carcass bruising. Breed associated with carcass bruising prevalence. Carcass (classified as either Holstein cattle or beef breeds), sex, bruising was more prevalent in Holstein cattle than distance traveled, and trailer type (“fat/feeder combi- in cattle which were predominantly beef breeds (P ≤ nation” vs. “fat” trailer) were considered risk factors 0.01). Average carcass weight was negatively associ- which may contribute to traumatic event prevalence. ated with carcass bruise prevalence (P ≤ 0.05). The When carcass bruise prevalence within each lot was association between traumatic events at unloading used as the dependent variable, breed, sex, distance and carcass bruising is not significant when multiple traveled, traumatic event prevalence, ribeye area, fat variables are considered, indicating that bruising may thickness, yield grade, and average carcass weight occur at numerous other points prior to and during the were considered potential risk factors. Carcass bruises transportation process, including loading and trans- were categorized by location and size, according to port, and that other variables can contribute to carcass the Harvest Audit Program Carcass Bruise Scoring bruise prevalence. These areas should be explored to System. Traumatic events were observed while cattle determine all potential causes of bruising in beef car- exited trailers onto the unloading docks, and were casses, and to help implement prevention practices. Key words: carcass bruising, cattle, feedlot, loading, transportation, trauma © 2017 American Society of Animal Science. This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Transl. Anim. Sci. 2017.1:489–497 doi:10.2527/tas2017.0055 IntroductIon must be discarded because it provides an ideal en- vironment for bacterial proliferation, which poses a Bruising in fed beef cattle costs the industry ap- significant food safety concern (Marshall, 1977). In proximately $35 million annually (Cargill Meat addition, bruising is an indicator of poor animal wel- Solutions, personal communication). Bruised tissue fare during the pre-slaughter period (Broom, 2003). Hoffman et al. (1998) defined a bruise as “a tissue injury without laceration usually produced by a blunt Corresponding author: dr.tlee.dvm@gmail.com object impacting an animal with sufficient force to Received August 15, 2017. cause rupture of the vascular supply and accumulation Accepted September 14, 2017. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 490 Lee et al. of blood and serum in tissues.” This definition indicates The same lots of cattle were observed by a sec- that a bruise follows after the animal experiences some ond trained observer for carcass bruising prevalence sort of trauma. Many potential sources of bruising have using the Harvest Audit Program Carcass Bruise been suggested in the literature, including vehicle de- Scoring System, developed at Kansas State University sign, transport conditions, and loading and unloading (Rezac, 2013). The scoring system allows the observ- procedures, however none of these have been explored er to record the presence of all bruises on a carcass, extensively, and the trauma associated with these areas their location, and the size category in which they fall. of the transport process is not addressed in fed beef cat- Location was determined by dividing the carcass into tle in the United States (Strappini et al., 2009; Strappini a grid of 9 sections (Fig. 1), and recording the pres- et al., 2013). Grandin (1980) and Broom (2003) re- ence or absence of a bruise in each section. Size of the ported that much of the bruising observed in livestock bruises was categorized as small (< 5 cm in diameter), results from rough handling during loading, transport, medium (5 o 15 cm in diameter), or large (> 15 cm in and unloading, but clear supportive data is lacking. It’s diameter). Bruise severity was not addressed, as the been reported that 43% of carcass bruising observed severity of a bruise depends on the density of the af- occurs at the slaughter facility, however handling prac- fected tissue, and the vascularity of said tissue, mak- tices have improved immensely since the publication of ing such a measurement impossible in the fast-paced such research (McCausland & Millar, 1982). Therefore, environment of a commercial slaughter facility in the the primary objective of this study was to determine United States (Strappini et al., 2009). whether a relationship exists between trauma incurred Multiple linear regression (PROC GLIMMIX in during unloading and prevalence of carcass bruising in SAS v. 9.4; SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) with backward finished beef cattle at commercial slaughter facilities. variable selection was used to develop a statistical In addition, other risk factors which may contribute to model exploring risk factors which may contribute carcass bruising in finished beef cattle are addressed, to traumatic events and/or carcass bruising. The ex- including breed, sex, distance traveled, carcass charac- perimental unit for evaluation of traumatic events was teristics, and the trailer type used during transport. trailer load. Breed (classified as either Holstein cat - tle or beef breeds), sex, distance traveled, and trailer MAterIAlS And MetHodS type (“fat/feeder combination” vs. “fat” trailer) were used as independent variables, or fixed effects, when Permission to observe live animals was approved developing a model to investigate factors contribut- by the Kansas State University Institutional Care and ing to traumatic event prevalence. The experimental Use Committee, IACUC #3598. Permission to ob- unit for evaluation of carcass bruising was lot. When serve animals unloading and carcasses on the line was carcass bruise prevalence within each lot was used as obtained from corporate and management personnel for each slaughter facility prior to observation days. Permission to record trailer design was also obtained from the transporters and the slaughter facilities. No treatments were assigned for this observational study. Fed beef cattle were observed at 3 commercial slaughter facilities during July and August of 2015. Lots of finished beef cattle were selected from the slaughter facility’s daily slaughter order sheet. Whole lots were observed, even if the lot arrived in multiple trailers. Individual animal identification was not recorded. To record traumatic events at unloading, a trained observer watched the cattle coming off the trailers, and counted the cattle that hit any part of the trailer during un- loading. Multiple events were recorded for the individual animal if the animal experienced more than 1 traumatic event. Each traumatic event was classified by its location. Locations were specified as shoulder, back, rib, or hip areas. Some cattle experienced multiple traumatic events. Prevalence of traumatic event occurrence was calculated using the number of traumatic events observed at unload- Figure 1. Grid of sections used in the Harvest Audit Bruise Scoring ing over the total number of cattle in the trailer. System. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Risk factors contributing to carcass bruising 491 t able 1. Description of cattle hauled in each trailer the dependent variable, breed, sex, distance traveled, type (fat vs. combination trailers) traumatic event prevalence, ribeye area, fat thickness, yield grade, and average carcass weight were consid- Class of Fat Combination 1 1 Descriptor cattle Trailers Trailers ered independent variables. In both models, slaughter Number of trailers observed 129 146 facility and feedyard nested within slaughter facility Breed were considered random effects. Beef 99 132 Each analysis started with exploration of frequency Holstein 30 14 distributions, raw means, and other patterns in the data. Sex The GLIMMIX procedure in SAS was used to develop Steers 104 108 univariable linear regression models for each indepen- Heifers 18 26 dent variable to explore linear relationships between Mixed 7 11 the dependent and independent variables. Then, using Not specified 1 the GLIMMIX procedure, a full multivariable linear Average #head/trailer model containing all predictor variables was used to Beef 34 37 estimate effects on the outcome of interest (traumat - Holstein 33 37 ic event prevalence or carcass bruising prevalence). 1 Fat/feeder combo trailers are those which are used to haul both feeder Using backward selection, independent variables and calves and finished beef cattle. Fat trailers are usually used to haul finished cattle only. The differences between these types of trailers include the pres- their 2-way interactions were eliminated from the ence or absence of a “jail” or “doghouse” in the upper rear compartment of model one by one, using a P-value of ≥ 0.05 as exclu- the trailer, used to contain very small calves (present in fat/feeder combo sion criteria, starting with interactions displaying the trailers, Beef Quality Assurance, 2006), the presence of a small compart- ment in the nose of the trailer, used as a counter-balance (also present in highest P-value, then moving to individual variables fat/feeder combo trailers), and the clearance height of the entrance into the displaying P-values over 0.05. Forward selection was “belly”, or lower compartment of the trailer (approximately 2 to 3 inches used to confirm the results of models developed from shorter in fat/feeder combo trailers). Either type of trailer can have a slide- in or fold-up ramp leading into the upper deck compartment. the backward selection process. Mixed lot refers to a lot comprised of both heifers and steers. Linear regression was used rather than logistic re- gression as the data were normally distributed, with seemingly equal variance among the residual errors. In t able 2. Description of lots observed for both trau- addition, such data must be easily interpreted by indus- matic events and carcass bruising try personnel such as slaughter facility employees, truck Descriptor Class of cattle Count drivers, and other personnel involved in the movement Total Number of lots 75 of animals from feed-yards to slaughter facilities. Average #head/lot 131 Chi-square goodness of fit tests were used to de- Breed termine differences of observed versus expected val- Beef 63 ues of carcass bruising by location on the carcass and Holstein 12 bruise size. Expected values consisted of equal distri- Sex bution of bruising on the left side, the right side, and Steer 54 the dorsal midline of the carcass; the cranial, middle, Heifer 13 and caudal thirds of the carcass; and small, medium, 1 Mixed 8 and large bruises. Mixed lot refers to a lot comprised of both heifers and steers. reSultS A total of 9,860 animals in 75 lots were observed bruise prevalence, a description of carcass data, in- at 3 different slaughter facilities in the United States. cluding average hot carcass weight (kg), average rib- Animals were observed disembarking from 275 trail- eye area (REA), average fat thickness (in), and yield ers. Combination trailers were more frequently ob- grade by lot is presented in Table 3. served than fat trailers. The average number of ani- mals hauled in combination trailers was 37 head, and Traumatic Events the average number of animals hauled in fat trailers was 33 head (Table 1). The average number of cattle Average traumatic event prevalence in finished per lot was 131. More lots comprised of beef breeds cattle by lot was 20.4% (± 1.11%, Table 3). When were observed than Holstein, and there were more lots the multiple linear regression model was developed made up of steers than lots of heifers and/or mixed for the outcome of prevalence of traumatic events, an sex (Table 2). Along with traumatic event and carcass interaction between breed and trailer type (Fig. 2, P ≤ Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 492 Lee et al. t able 3. Description of lots, including carcass characteristics, prevalence of traumatic events experienced, and prevalence of carcass bruising Average Carcass Average Average Fat Prevalence Prevalence Number Weight, REA , Thickness, Average of Traumatic of Carcass 2 3 4 Breed Sex of lots, n kg, SEM in, SEM in, SEM YG , SEM Events , SEM Bruising , SEM Beef Heifer 13 371.01 (+ 6.5) 14.09 (+ 0.28) 0.51 (+ 0.02) 2.62 (+ 0.08) 17.2% (+ 3.0%) 67.1% (+ 2.8%) Mixed 8 375.0 (+ 5.7) 14.01 (+ 0.23) 0.56 (+ 0.02) 2.73 (+ 0.10) 18.4% (+ 2.9%) 64.9% (+ 3.5%) Steer 42 419.2 (+ 4.1) 14.12 (+ 0.17) 0.56 (+ 0.02) 2.65 (+ 0.07) 19.5% (+ 1.4%) 66.7% (+ 1.4%) Total 63 403.7 (+ 3.1) 14.1 (+ 0.13) 0.55 (+ 0.03) 2.66 (+ 0.08) 18.9% (+ 1.1%) 66.6% (+ 2.5%) Holstein Steer 12 394.6 (+ 4.2) 13.85 (+ 0.32) 0.57 (+ 0.01) 2.81 (+ 0.05) 28.6% (+ 2.5%) 76.6% (+ 1.2%) Total 75 402.2 (+ 3.6) 14.05 ( ± 0.12) 0.55 (+ 0.01) 2.68 (+ 0.04) 20.4% (+ 1.1%) 68.2% (+ 1.2%) REA = Ribeye area. YG = Yield grade. Prevalence of traumatic event occurrence was calculated dividing the number of traumatic events observed at unloading by the total number of cattle in the trailer. Prevalence of carcass bruising was calculated by dividing the number of carcasses with a bruise present over the total number of animals in the lot. Mixed lot refers to a lot comprised of both heifers and steers. Figure 2. Prevalence of traumatic events for each combination of breed and trailer type. There was a significant interaction between trailer type and cattle breed, whereby Holstein cattle hauled in fat/feeder combination trailers experienced higher prevalence of traumatic events than their beef counterparts. Fat/ feeder combo trailers are those which are used to haul both feeder calves and finished beef cattle. Fat trailers are usually used to haul finished cattle only. The differences between these types of trailers include the presence or absence of a “jail” or “doghouse” in the upper rear compartment of the trailer, used to contain very small calves (present in fat/feeder combo trailers, Beef Quality Assurance, 2006), the presence of a small compartment in the nose of the trailer, used as a counter-balance (also present in fat/feeder combo trailers), and the clearance height of the entrance into the “belly”, or lower compartment of the trailer (approximately 5–8cm shorter in fat/feeder combo trailers). Either type of trailer can have a slide-in or fold-up ramp leading into the upper deck compartment. Carcass Bruising 0.05) was observed with traumatic event prevalence being greatest for Holstein cattle hauled in fat/feeder Average carcass bruise prevalence in finished cattle combination trailers. No other risk factors measured by lot was 68.2% (± 1.15%, Table 3). Prevalence of car- were found to be associated with traumatic event cass bruising in beef breed cattle was 66.6%, compared prevalence in cattle during unloading at the slaughter to a prevalence of 76.6% in Holstein cattle (Table 3, P ≤ facilities (Table 4). 0.05). Over half of the bruises on the beef carcasses ob- Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Risk factors contributing to carcass bruising 493 t able 4. P-values generated from univariable and es were observed on the carcasses than small or large multivariable analyses for the outcome traumatic bruises (Table 7, P ≤ 0.05). events. Only 2-way interactions were evaluated in the When carcass bruising was considered the depen- multivariable analysis. Interaction effects are listed in dent variable, no interactions were observed. However, the order by which they were removed from the model breed and average carcass weight were associated using backward selection at a threshold of P > 0.05 with bruising of cattle carcasses (Table 8). Holstein cattle displayed greater carcass bruising than did beef Univariable Multivariable Final model Independent variable P-values P-values P-values breeds (Table 9, P ≤ 0.05). As average carcass weight Distance 0.7026 0.4542 N/A increased, the prevalence of carcass bruising decreased Sex 0.0091 0.1159 N/A linearly (Fig. 3, P ≤ 0.05). P-values for all univariable Breed 0.0001 0.0042 0.0042 and multivariable analyses for the outcome of carcass Trailer Type 0.0591 0.0507 0.0507 bruising are listed in Table 10. Sex × Trailer N/A 0.8501 N/A Distance × Trailer N/A 0.6945 N/A Distance × Sex N/A 0.2727 N/A Distance × Breed N/A 0.0713 N/A t able 6. Percent of carcass bruising on the front, mid- Breed × Trailer N/A 0.0111 0.0111 dle, and rear thirds of beef carcasses. Equal distribution Sex was categorized as “Steer,” “Heifer,” or “Mixed.” between all regions was expected Breed was categorized as “Beef” or “Holstein.” Bruise location Mean, % SEM, % Fat/feeder combo trailers are those which are used to haul both feeder 1 a calves and finished beef cattle. Fat trailers are usually used to haul finished Front 31.30 1.05 cattle only. The differences between these types of trailers include the pres- 2 b Middle 56.13 1.02 ence or absence of a “jail” or “doghouse” in the upper rear compartment of 3 c Rear 12.57 0.71 the trailer, used to contain very small calves (present in fat/feeder combo a–c trailers, Beef Quality Assurance, 2006), the presence of a small compart- Superscripts indicate a significant difference between the observed values ment in the nose of the trailer, used as a counter-balance (also present in and the expected values of the bruising in each region (P ≤ 0.05). fat/feeder combo trailers), and the clearance height of the entrance into the 1 Bruises along the front third of the carcass were those which occurred “belly”, or lower compartment of the trailer (approximately 2 to 3 inches in areas 7, 8, and 9 (see Fig. 1). shorter in fat/feeder combo trailers). Either type of trailer can have a slide- Bruises along the middle third of the carcass were those which oc- in or fold-up ramp leading into the upper deck compartment. curred in areas 4, 5, and 6 (see Fig. 1). Bruises along the rear third of the carcass were those which occurred in areas 1, 2, and 3 (see Fig. 1). served occurred along the dorsal midline (53.5 ± 1.12%, Table 5, P ≤ 0.05), which is in agreement with previ- ous research using the Harvest Audit Program Bruise t able 7. Percent of carcass bruising categorized as Scoring system and the 2011 National Beef Quality small, medium, or large bruises. Equal distribution Audit (McKeith et al., 2012; Youngers et al., 2016,). between all sizes was expected Carcass bruising was greatest in the middle third of the Bruise size Mean, % SEM, % carcass, followed by the cranial third, then the caudal Small ( < 5cm) 28.64 1.32 third, which is also in agreement with Youngers et al. Medium (5 to 15cm) 41.77 0.97 (2016, Table 6, P ≤ 0.05). More medium-sized bruis- Large ( > 15cm) 29.58 1.81 a-c Superscripts indicate a significant difference between the observed values and the expected values of bruise size. t able 5. Percent of carcass bruising on the left side, the dorsal midline, and the right side of beef carcasses. Equal distribution between all regions was expected t able 8. Estimates of parameters for the fixed effects Bruise location Mean, % SEM, % 1 a of average carcass weight and breed of cattle assessed Left 26.46 1.10 2 b with multiple linear regression Midline 53.52 1.12 3 c Right 19.98 1.04 1 2 Effect Class Estimate SEM P-value a–c Superscripts indicate a significant difference between the observed values Intercept 1.0952 0.1447 < 0.001 and the expected values of the bruising in each region (P ≤ 0.05). Average Carcass Weight –0.00082 0.00035 0.022 Bruises along the left side of the carcass were those which occurred in Breed Beef –0.9515 0.03519 0.009 areas 3, 6, and 9 (see Fig. 1). Holstein Ref. Bruises along the left side of the carcass were those which occurred in Refers to breed of cattle. areas 2, 5, and 8 (see Fig. 1). 3 Parameter estimates. Bruises along the left side of the carcass were those which occurred in areas 1, 4, and 7 (see Fig. 1). Ref. = reference category. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 494 Lee et al. t able 9. Estimate of mean carcass bruise prevalence partment of the trailer, used to contain very small calves per lot by breed (cattle were categorized as either (present in fat/feeder combo trailers, Beef Quality Holstein or beef breeds). Estimates with different Assurance, 2006), the presence of a small compartment superscripts differ significantly ( P ≤ 0.05) in the nose of the trailer, used as a counter-balance (also Class Estimate, % SEM, % present in fat/feeder combo trailers), and the clearance Beef 67.20 3.0 height of the entrance into the “belly”, or lower com- Holstein 76.70 4.3 partment of the trailer (approximately 5 to 8 cm shorter a,b in fat/feeder combo trailers). Either type of trailer can Superscripts indicate a significant difference between the mean estimates. Refers to breed of cattle. have a slide-in or fold-up ramp leading into the upper deck compartment—ramp type was not part of the data collected in this study. dIScuSSIon Holsteins experienced more traumatic events compared to beef breeds when hauled in fat/feeder combination trailers than when hauled in trailers for Traumatic Events fat cattle only. Dairy breeds, particularly Holsteins, An interaction was observed between breed and often display larger frame sizes than their beef breed trailer type when traumatic events were used as the de- counterparts (Long et al., 1979; Tatum et al., 1986). pendent variable. In the United States, trailer types are Therefore, this difference could be due to the decreased usually observed as “fat/feeder combination (combo)” space allowance and clearance in the different trailer trailers, and “fat” trailers. In other countries, such as types and larger frame size of Holstein cattle. Data on Colombia, studies have been conducted exploring the frame size would help to make more solid conclusions effect of transport vehicle on carcass bruising (Romero about the effect height of cattle on traumatic events et al., 2013). However, the trucks and trailers used in experienced. Hip height would be a measure which other countries differ greatly from those used in the could influence the trauma experienced in different United States. In most cases, they are smaller, hold- types of trailers, as taller cattle may be more likely to ing only 14 to 16 animals, with open sides and canvas experience trauma and subsequent bruising. roofing—vastly different from the large aluminum trail- ers used to haul 30–40 animals at a time in the United Carcass Bruising States. In the current study, trailer type was defined by the truck drivers hauling the cattle enrolled. Fat/feeder It is generally accepted that animals which ex- combo trailers are those which are used to haul both perience traumatic events will subsequently display feeder calves and finished beef cattle. Fat trailers are bruising, however the contribution of each traumatic usually used to haul finished cattle only. The differences event to the actual bruising displayed is not well docu- between these types of trailers include the presence or mented (Stedman, 2006; Strappini et al., 2013). The absence of a “jail” or “doghouse” in the upper rear com- correlation between traumatic events and bruising was Figure 3. Relationship between average carcass weight and carcass bruising prevalence by lot for lots of Holstein and beef breed cattle (P ≤ 0.05), results from multivariable linear regression model. Each point on the graph represents a lot of cattle observed. Triangles represent lots of Holstein cattle (n = 12), while dots represent lots of beef breed cattle (n = 63). Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Risk factors contributing to carcass bruising 495 t able 10. P-values generated from univariable and multivariable analyses for the outcome carcass bruising. Only 2-way interactions were evaluated in the multivariable analysis. Interaction effects are listed in the order by which they were removed from the model using backward selection at a threshold of P > 0.05 Independent variable Univariable P-value Multivariable P-value Final model P-value Traumatic Events 0.1158 0.3155 N/A Average Carcass Weight 0.0195 0.0222 0.0222 Distance 0.2169 0.4166 N/A Sex 0.747 0.5208 N/A Breed 0.0078 0.0.0087 0.0087 Ribeye Area 0.2375 0.1019 N/A Average Yield Grade 0.0786 0.4627 N/A Fat Thickness 0.3968 0.5064 N/A Traumatic Events × REA N/A 0.9543 N/A Traumatic Events × Fat Thickness N/A 0.8967 N/A REA × Distance N/A 0.8023 N/A Average Carcass Weight × Distance N/A 0.8797 N/A Traumatic Events × Distance N/A 0.8359 N/A Distance × Breed N/A 0.6229 N/A Fat Thickness × Average YG N/A 0.5394 N/A Average YG × Distance N/A 0.3544 N/A Fat Thickness × Distance N/A 0.7798 N/A Average Carcass Weight × Breed N/A 0.4482 N/A Traumatic Events × Average Carcass Weight N/A 0.3222 N/A REA × Average YG N/A 0.3068 N/A Average YG × Breed N/A 0.1105 N/A Average Carcass Weight × REA N/A 0.1875 N/A Traumatic Events × Breed N/A 0.2778 N/A REA × Breed N/A 0.8703 N/A Average Carcass Weight × Average YG N/A 0.1413 N/A Average Carcass Weight × Fat Thickness N/A 0.3681 N/A Fat Thickness × Breed N/A 0.1259 N/A Traumatic Events × Average YG N/A 0.1139 N/A REA × Fat Thickness N/A 0.0745 N/A Sex was categorized as “Steer,” “Heifer,” or “Mixed.” Breed was categorized as “Beef” or “Holstein.” Ribeye Area = REA. Yield Grade = YG. not found to be related in this study. This could pos- There was no observed effect of distance traveled on sibly be explained due to the fact that traumatic events the prevalence of carcass bruising or traumatic events were only observed at unloading at the slaughter facil- observed in finished cattle. Jarvis et al. (1995a) also ity. No observations were made at other points where found that there was no effect of distance traveled on trauma could occur, such as at loading or during the the bruising scores observed in finished cattle at slaugh- transport process itself. Jarvis et al. (1995b) explored ter. Hoffman et al. (1998) observed that cattle hauled the relationship between the same variables, but found longer distances to slaughter had more bruising on their no significant correlation between potentially traumat - carcasses than cattle hauled shorter distances. However, ic events at unloading and the number of bruises per that study included mature beef cows, which usually animal. Traumatic events and bruising relationships display different physical characteristics than fed cat- due to trailer type could not be directly observed in the tle, such as less fat cover, and more pronounced bony current study, as cattle in the same lot usually arrived prominences. The environment in which these studies in multiple truckloads. After unloading, these loads were conducted must be considered, as the current study were combined back into their original lots and penned focused on fed cattle coming into slaughter facilities together in the slaughter facility holding pens, making which are built relatively close to cattle sources. Jarvis it impossible to measure the effect of trailer type on et al. (1995a) included cattle which traveled up to and actual carcass bruising in the animals observed. over 80 miles, but Hoffman et al. (1998) included cattle Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 496 Lee et al. which had traveled over 580 miles. In the current study, previously, speed of cattle exiting the trucks was not no cattle observed had traveled over 300 miles, and it measured in this study. Grandin (1997) indicated that could be that cattle traveling well over the distances more temperamental or excitable cattle will move faster observed here could display higher carcass bruising. In and are more prone to injury, however bruising was not addition, the sources of the cows were different than the assessed in that review. Fordyce et al. (1985) reported sources of the fed cattle observed here, in that the cows that temperament had no effect on carcass bruising, but used by Hoffman et al. came from ranches and livestock the cattle used in the study were reported to be “rela- auctions, where the cattle observed here came directly tively quiet.” A method to measure flight speed was from the feedlot. Movement through livestock auctions proposed by Vetters et al. (2013) to determine speed of could have contributed to carcass bruising in the cows. cattle at processing, and could potentially be used to In this study, there was no statistical difference be- determine if speed at loading or unloading has an effect tween bruising observed in animals of different sex- on traumatic events or carcass bruising in fed cattle. To es. Previous research has found sex to be a significant better understand how differences in temperament can contributor to the carcass bruising observed at slaugh- affect carcass bruising, temperament scores, handling ter (Romero et al., 2013; Leach, 1982). Research from techniques, and speed at which cattle are moved were Romero et al. (2013) indicated that carcass bruising was not recorded in the current study, but could contribute significantly different between males and females, with to carcass bruising, and should be assessed when con- males displaying more carcass bruising than females. sidering trauma and carcass bruising outcomes. Another study found that male cattle are more likely to Holsteins displayed more carcass bruising than display higher serum creatine kinase (CK) levels, which beef breeds. Dairy breeds, particularly Holsteins, often the authors link to stress and bruising (Mpakama et al., display larger frame sizes than their beef breed counter- 2014). This difference in CK levels has been documented parts (Tatum et al., 1986). Research shows that in feed- in humans as well, and is attributed to larger body mass in er cattle, frame size has a significant effect on carcass males (Brancaccio et al., 2007). However, Leach (1982) weight, where larger frame size leads to higher carcass reported that the occurrence of bruised tissue from cull weight (Dolezal et al., 1993). An interaction between cows was significantly higher than that of steers. Again, breed and average carcass weight would better support animal type and origin must be considered when com- such a hypothesis. Since frame size or hip height were paring results of such studies, as many bruising studies not measured in this study, it is impossible to conclude involve a mixture of fed steers and heifers, cull cows, and the effect of frame size on carcass bruise prevalence. cull bulls. Such variation in animal type and source was Mpakama et al. (2014) reported on the association of not observed here, as all cattle were sourced from feed- breed with creatine kinase levels, but did not report on yards with the sole intent of being slaughtered as fed beef. the relationship between breed and carcass bruising, Results show that average carcass weight was sig- and did not assess the breeds represented in the current nificantly correlated with carcass bruise prevalence. study. In addition, while mature body size is geneti- Intuitively, one may think that bruising would increase cally determined, research shows that it can be altered as carcass weight increased, as there may be increased by nutritional or hormonal factors, including malnutri- risk of trauma, however the opposite effect was ob- tion and hormonal growth implant status (Owens et al., served. As average carcass weight of the lots increased, 1993). In this study, the number of Holstein animals carcass bruise prevalence decreased. Some researchers observed compared to the number of beef animals hypothesized that a decrease in fat cover will lead to could contribute to the lack of a statistically significant increased bruising, as the fatty tissue offers some pro- interaction between breed and average carcass weight. tection from the effects of outside trauma however did More data should be collected to determine how frame not explore the idea extensively (Knowles et al., 1994; size, as measured by hip height or a frame score, affects Strappini et al., 2012). Strappini et al. (2010) did ex- bruising in both beef and Holstein cattle. plore this relationship, and confirmed that as fat cov- er increased, carcass bruising decreased. Due to the Conclusion decreased vascularity of fat, it could be that animals experienced similar events which may cause bruising, While there are limitations to this and many other but the fatty tissue did not hemorrhage as much as the observational studies, the information gleaned here can highly vascular muscle tissue in lighter-weight animals. contribute to an existing knowledge base. Here, Holstein It may be that heavier cattle may move slower than cattle hauled in trailers with smaller dimensions experi- lighter ones, decreasing the pressure at which poten- enced more traumatic events than when hauled on larger tially traumatic events would occur, which may in turn trailers. Holstein cattle also displayed a higher preva- decrease the potential for carcass bruising. As stated lence of carcass bruising than cattle of beef breeds, and Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Risk factors contributing to carcass bruising 497 Long, C. R., T. S. Steward, T. C. Cartwright, and T. G. Jenkins. bruising decreased in both breeds as hot carcass weight 1979. Characterization of cattle of a five breed diallel: I. increased. More research is needed to better understand Measures of size, condition, and growth in bulls. J. Anim. Sci. 49(2):418–431. doi:10.2527/jas1979.492418x how the entire transportation process, including animal Marshall, B. L. 1977. Bruising in cattle presented for slaughter. N. Z. handling at loading and unloading, trailer type, and ani- Vet. J. 25(4):83–86. doi:10.1080/00480169.1977.34367 mal risk factors contribute to carcass bruising in fed cat- McCausland, I. P., and H. W. C. Millar. 1982. Time of occurrence tle. Risk factors such as breed, sex, cattle temperament, of bruises in slaughtered cattle. Aust. Vet. J. 58:253–255. and carcass traits should not be overlooked. In addition, doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.1982.tb00690.x the type of cattle being observed must be considered, McKeith, R. O., G. D. Gray, D. S. Hale, C. R. Kerth, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, C. R. Raines, K. E. Belk, D. R. Woerner, and comparisons between groups should be made with J. D. Tatum, J. L. Igo, D. L. VanOverbeke, G. G. Mafi, T. caution, always remembering that risk factors can dif- E. Lawrence, R. J. Delmore, L. M. Christensen, S. D. fer between the groups. However, no matter what cattle Shackelford, D. A. King, T. L. Wheeler, L. R. Meadows, and group or type is included in subsequent research, carcass M. E. O’Connor. 2012. National Beef Quality Audit—2011: bruising in cattle is a significant economic and animal Harvest-floor assessments of targeted characteristics that af- fect quality and value of cattle, carcasses, and byproducts. J. welfare issue, and only more research can help decrease Anim. Sci. 90:5135–5142. doi:10.2527/jas.2012-5477 the number of animals which experience trauma during Mpakama, T., A. Y. Chulayo, and V. Muchenje. 2014. Bruising in the transport process and carcass bruising at slaughter. slaughter cattle and its relationship with creatine kinase levels and beef quality as affected by animal related factors. Asian-australas. lIterA ture cIted J. Anim. Sci. 27(5):717–725. doi:10.5713/ajas.2013.13483 Owens, F. N., P. Dubeski, and C. F. Hanson. 1993. Factors that Beef Quality Assurance. 2006. Master cattle transporter guide. http:// alter the growth and development of ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. www.bqa.org/resources/manuals National Cattlemen’s Beef 71:3138–3150. doi:10.2527/1993.71113138x Association, Centennial, CO. (Accessed 15 November 2016.) Rezac, D. J. 2013. Gross pathology monitoring at slaughter. Brancaccio, P., N. Maffulli, and F. M. Limongelli. 2007. Creatine Dissertation. Dep. Diag. Med. & Pathobiol. Kansas State kinase monitoring in sport medicine. Brit. Med. Bulletin. 81 University. (Accessed February 2015.) and 82:209–230. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldm014. Romero, M. H., L. F. Uribe-Velasquez, J. A. Sanchez, and G. C. Broom, D. M. 2003. Causes of poor welfare in large animals dur- Miranda-de la Lama. 2013. Risk factors influencing bruis- ing transport. Vet. Res. Commun. 27(Suppl. 1):515–518. ing and high muscle pH in Colombian cattle carcasses due doi:10.1023/B:VERC.0000014210.29852.9a to transport and pre-slaughter operations. Meat Sci. 95:256– Dolezal, H. G., J. D. Tatum, and F. L. Williams, Jr. 1993. Effects 263. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.05.014 of feeder cattle frame size, muscle thickness, and age class Stedman. 2006. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. 28th ed., on days fed, weight, and carcass composition. J. Anim. Sci. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD. 71:2975–2985. doi:10.2527/1993.71112975x Strappini, A. C., J. H. M. Metz, C. B. Gallo, and B. Kemp. 2009. Fordyce, G., M. E. Goddard, R. Tyler, G. Williams, and M. A. Toleman. Origin and assessment of bruises in beef cattle at slaughter. 1985. Temperament and bruising of Bos indicus cross cattle. Aust. Animal 3(5):728–736. doi:10.1017/S1751731109004091 J. Exp. Agric. 25(2):283–288. doi:10.1071/EA9850283 Strappini, A. C., K. Frankena, J. H. M. Metz, B. Gallo, and B. Kemp. Grandin, T. 1980. Bruises and carcass damage. Int. J. Study Anim. 2010. Prevalence and risk factors for bruises in Chilean bovine car- Probl. 1(2):121–137. casses. Meat Sci. 86:859–864. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.07.010 Grandin, T. 1997. Assessment of stress during handling and transport. J. Strappini, A. C., K. Frankena, J. H. M. Metz, C. Gallo, and B. Kemp. Anim. Sci. 75:249–257. doi:10.2527/1997.751249x 2012. Characteristics of bruises in carcasses of cows sourced Hoffman, D. E., M. F. Spire, J. R. Schwenke, and J. A. Unruh. from farms or from livestock markets. Animal 6(03):502–509. 1998. Effect of source of cattle and distance transported to doi:10.1017/S1751731111001698 a commercial slaughter facility on carcass bruises in mature Strappini, A. C., J. H. M. Metz, C. Gallo, K. Frankena, R. Vargas, I. beef cows. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 212(5):668–672. de Freslon, and B. Kemp. 2013. Bruises in culled cows: When, Jarvis, A. M., L. Selkirk, and M. S. Cockram. 1995a. The influ- where and how are they inflicted? Animal 7(03):485–491. ence of source, sex class, and pre-slaughter handling on the doi:10.1017/S1751731112001863 bruising of cattle at two slaughterhouses. Livestock Prod. Sci. Tatum, J. D., F. L. Williams, Jr., and R. A. Bowling. 1986. Effects of 43:215–224. doi:10.1016/0301-6226(95)00055-P feeder-cattle frame size and muscle thickness on subsequent Jarvis, A. M., C. D. A. Messer, and M. S. Cockram. 1995b. growth and carcass development. III. Partitioning of separable car- Handling, bruising, and dehydration of cattle at the time of cass fat. J. Anim. Sci. 62:132–138. doi:10.2527/jas1986.621132x slaughter. Anim. Welf. 5:259–270. Vetters, M. D. D., T. E. Engle, J. K. Ahola, and T. Grandin. 2013. Knowles, T. G., D. H. L. Maunder, P. D. Wariss, T. W. H. Jones. Comparison of flight speed and exit score as measurements 1994. Factors affecting the mortality of lambs in transit to or of temperament in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 91:374–381. in lairage at a slaughterhouse, and reasons for carcase con- doi:10.2527/jas.2012-5122 demnations. Vet. Rec. 135: 109-111. Youngers, M. E., D. U. Thomson, E. F. Schwandt, J. C. Simroth, S. J. Leach, T. M. 1982. Physiology of the transport of cattle. Transport Bartle, M. G. Siemens, and C. D. Reinhardt. 2016. Case Study: of Animals Intended for Breeding, Production, and Slaughter. Prevalence of horns and bruising in feedlot cattle at slaughter. Agric. Research Council, Meat Research Institute, Langford, Prof. Anim. Sci. 33:135–139. doi:10.15232/pas.2016-01551 Bristol, U.K. p. 57–72. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-7582-8_7 Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Translational Animal Science Oxford University Press

Assessment of risk factors contributing to carcass bruising in fed cattle at commercial slaughter facilities

Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/assessment-of-risk-factors-contributing-to-carcass-bruising-in-fed-TthG8pN417

References (58)

eISSN
2573-2102
DOI
10.2527/tas2017.0055
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Assessment of risk factors contributing to carcass bruising in fed cattle at commercial slaughter facilities t . l. lee, * C. D. Reinhardt,† S. J. Bartle,‡ C. I. Vahl,§ M. Siemens,# and D. U. Thomson║ *North American Meat Institute, Washington, DC 20036; †Reinhardt Nutrition Consulting, LLC, Katy, TX 77494; ‡Bartle Consulting, Manhattan, KS 66502; §Department of Statistics, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506; #Arrowsight, Mt. Kisco, NY 10549; and ║Department of Diagnostic Medicine & Pathobiology, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506 ABStrAct : Cattle injuries can occur during trans- categorized by location on the animal. Average trau- portation due to vehicle design, transport conditions, matic event prevalence per lot was 20.4% (± 1.11%). and loading or unloading procedures and lead to car- Average carcass bruise prevalence by lot was 68.2% cass bruising and economic loss due to decreased car- (± 1.15%). There was an interaction between breed cass value. The objectives of this study were to de- and trailer type when multiple linear regression was termine whether a relationship exists between trauma used to explore variables contributing to traumatic incurred during unloading and prevalence of carcass events observed at unloading (P ≤ 0.05). Traumatic bruising in finished beef cattle at commercial slaugh- events were not associated with prevalence of carcass ter facilities and determine related risk factors which bruising, while average carcass weight and breed were contribute to both trauma and carcass bruising. Breed associated with carcass bruising prevalence. Carcass (classified as either Holstein cattle or beef breeds), sex, bruising was more prevalent in Holstein cattle than distance traveled, and trailer type (“fat/feeder combi- in cattle which were predominantly beef breeds (P ≤ nation” vs. “fat” trailer) were considered risk factors 0.01). Average carcass weight was negatively associ- which may contribute to traumatic event prevalence. ated with carcass bruise prevalence (P ≤ 0.05). The When carcass bruise prevalence within each lot was association between traumatic events at unloading used as the dependent variable, breed, sex, distance and carcass bruising is not significant when multiple traveled, traumatic event prevalence, ribeye area, fat variables are considered, indicating that bruising may thickness, yield grade, and average carcass weight occur at numerous other points prior to and during the were considered potential risk factors. Carcass bruises transportation process, including loading and trans- were categorized by location and size, according to port, and that other variables can contribute to carcass the Harvest Audit Program Carcass Bruise Scoring bruise prevalence. These areas should be explored to System. Traumatic events were observed while cattle determine all potential causes of bruising in beef car- exited trailers onto the unloading docks, and were casses, and to help implement prevention practices. Key words: carcass bruising, cattle, feedlot, loading, transportation, trauma © 2017 American Society of Animal Science. This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Transl. Anim. Sci. 2017.1:489–497 doi:10.2527/tas2017.0055 IntroductIon must be discarded because it provides an ideal en- vironment for bacterial proliferation, which poses a Bruising in fed beef cattle costs the industry ap- significant food safety concern (Marshall, 1977). In proximately $35 million annually (Cargill Meat addition, bruising is an indicator of poor animal wel- Solutions, personal communication). Bruised tissue fare during the pre-slaughter period (Broom, 2003). Hoffman et al. (1998) defined a bruise as “a tissue injury without laceration usually produced by a blunt Corresponding author: dr.tlee.dvm@gmail.com object impacting an animal with sufficient force to Received August 15, 2017. cause rupture of the vascular supply and accumulation Accepted September 14, 2017. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 490 Lee et al. of blood and serum in tissues.” This definition indicates The same lots of cattle were observed by a sec- that a bruise follows after the animal experiences some ond trained observer for carcass bruising prevalence sort of trauma. Many potential sources of bruising have using the Harvest Audit Program Carcass Bruise been suggested in the literature, including vehicle de- Scoring System, developed at Kansas State University sign, transport conditions, and loading and unloading (Rezac, 2013). The scoring system allows the observ- procedures, however none of these have been explored er to record the presence of all bruises on a carcass, extensively, and the trauma associated with these areas their location, and the size category in which they fall. of the transport process is not addressed in fed beef cat- Location was determined by dividing the carcass into tle in the United States (Strappini et al., 2009; Strappini a grid of 9 sections (Fig. 1), and recording the pres- et al., 2013). Grandin (1980) and Broom (2003) re- ence or absence of a bruise in each section. Size of the ported that much of the bruising observed in livestock bruises was categorized as small (< 5 cm in diameter), results from rough handling during loading, transport, medium (5 o 15 cm in diameter), or large (> 15 cm in and unloading, but clear supportive data is lacking. It’s diameter). Bruise severity was not addressed, as the been reported that 43% of carcass bruising observed severity of a bruise depends on the density of the af- occurs at the slaughter facility, however handling prac- fected tissue, and the vascularity of said tissue, mak- tices have improved immensely since the publication of ing such a measurement impossible in the fast-paced such research (McCausland & Millar, 1982). Therefore, environment of a commercial slaughter facility in the the primary objective of this study was to determine United States (Strappini et al., 2009). whether a relationship exists between trauma incurred Multiple linear regression (PROC GLIMMIX in during unloading and prevalence of carcass bruising in SAS v. 9.4; SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) with backward finished beef cattle at commercial slaughter facilities. variable selection was used to develop a statistical In addition, other risk factors which may contribute to model exploring risk factors which may contribute carcass bruising in finished beef cattle are addressed, to traumatic events and/or carcass bruising. The ex- including breed, sex, distance traveled, carcass charac- perimental unit for evaluation of traumatic events was teristics, and the trailer type used during transport. trailer load. Breed (classified as either Holstein cat - tle or beef breeds), sex, distance traveled, and trailer MAterIAlS And MetHodS type (“fat/feeder combination” vs. “fat” trailer) were used as independent variables, or fixed effects, when Permission to observe live animals was approved developing a model to investigate factors contribut- by the Kansas State University Institutional Care and ing to traumatic event prevalence. The experimental Use Committee, IACUC #3598. Permission to ob- unit for evaluation of carcass bruising was lot. When serve animals unloading and carcasses on the line was carcass bruise prevalence within each lot was used as obtained from corporate and management personnel for each slaughter facility prior to observation days. Permission to record trailer design was also obtained from the transporters and the slaughter facilities. No treatments were assigned for this observational study. Fed beef cattle were observed at 3 commercial slaughter facilities during July and August of 2015. Lots of finished beef cattle were selected from the slaughter facility’s daily slaughter order sheet. Whole lots were observed, even if the lot arrived in multiple trailers. Individual animal identification was not recorded. To record traumatic events at unloading, a trained observer watched the cattle coming off the trailers, and counted the cattle that hit any part of the trailer during un- loading. Multiple events were recorded for the individual animal if the animal experienced more than 1 traumatic event. Each traumatic event was classified by its location. Locations were specified as shoulder, back, rib, or hip areas. Some cattle experienced multiple traumatic events. Prevalence of traumatic event occurrence was calculated using the number of traumatic events observed at unload- Figure 1. Grid of sections used in the Harvest Audit Bruise Scoring ing over the total number of cattle in the trailer. System. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Risk factors contributing to carcass bruising 491 t able 1. Description of cattle hauled in each trailer the dependent variable, breed, sex, distance traveled, type (fat vs. combination trailers) traumatic event prevalence, ribeye area, fat thickness, yield grade, and average carcass weight were consid- Class of Fat Combination 1 1 Descriptor cattle Trailers Trailers ered independent variables. In both models, slaughter Number of trailers observed 129 146 facility and feedyard nested within slaughter facility Breed were considered random effects. Beef 99 132 Each analysis started with exploration of frequency Holstein 30 14 distributions, raw means, and other patterns in the data. Sex The GLIMMIX procedure in SAS was used to develop Steers 104 108 univariable linear regression models for each indepen- Heifers 18 26 dent variable to explore linear relationships between Mixed 7 11 the dependent and independent variables. Then, using Not specified 1 the GLIMMIX procedure, a full multivariable linear Average #head/trailer model containing all predictor variables was used to Beef 34 37 estimate effects on the outcome of interest (traumat - Holstein 33 37 ic event prevalence or carcass bruising prevalence). 1 Fat/feeder combo trailers are those which are used to haul both feeder Using backward selection, independent variables and calves and finished beef cattle. Fat trailers are usually used to haul finished cattle only. The differences between these types of trailers include the pres- their 2-way interactions were eliminated from the ence or absence of a “jail” or “doghouse” in the upper rear compartment of model one by one, using a P-value of ≥ 0.05 as exclu- the trailer, used to contain very small calves (present in fat/feeder combo sion criteria, starting with interactions displaying the trailers, Beef Quality Assurance, 2006), the presence of a small compart- ment in the nose of the trailer, used as a counter-balance (also present in highest P-value, then moving to individual variables fat/feeder combo trailers), and the clearance height of the entrance into the displaying P-values over 0.05. Forward selection was “belly”, or lower compartment of the trailer (approximately 2 to 3 inches used to confirm the results of models developed from shorter in fat/feeder combo trailers). Either type of trailer can have a slide- in or fold-up ramp leading into the upper deck compartment. the backward selection process. Mixed lot refers to a lot comprised of both heifers and steers. Linear regression was used rather than logistic re- gression as the data were normally distributed, with seemingly equal variance among the residual errors. In t able 2. Description of lots observed for both trau- addition, such data must be easily interpreted by indus- matic events and carcass bruising try personnel such as slaughter facility employees, truck Descriptor Class of cattle Count drivers, and other personnel involved in the movement Total Number of lots 75 of animals from feed-yards to slaughter facilities. Average #head/lot 131 Chi-square goodness of fit tests were used to de- Breed termine differences of observed versus expected val- Beef 63 ues of carcass bruising by location on the carcass and Holstein 12 bruise size. Expected values consisted of equal distri- Sex bution of bruising on the left side, the right side, and Steer 54 the dorsal midline of the carcass; the cranial, middle, Heifer 13 and caudal thirds of the carcass; and small, medium, 1 Mixed 8 and large bruises. Mixed lot refers to a lot comprised of both heifers and steers. reSultS A total of 9,860 animals in 75 lots were observed bruise prevalence, a description of carcass data, in- at 3 different slaughter facilities in the United States. cluding average hot carcass weight (kg), average rib- Animals were observed disembarking from 275 trail- eye area (REA), average fat thickness (in), and yield ers. Combination trailers were more frequently ob- grade by lot is presented in Table 3. served than fat trailers. The average number of ani- mals hauled in combination trailers was 37 head, and Traumatic Events the average number of animals hauled in fat trailers was 33 head (Table 1). The average number of cattle Average traumatic event prevalence in finished per lot was 131. More lots comprised of beef breeds cattle by lot was 20.4% (± 1.11%, Table 3). When were observed than Holstein, and there were more lots the multiple linear regression model was developed made up of steers than lots of heifers and/or mixed for the outcome of prevalence of traumatic events, an sex (Table 2). Along with traumatic event and carcass interaction between breed and trailer type (Fig. 2, P ≤ Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 492 Lee et al. t able 3. Description of lots, including carcass characteristics, prevalence of traumatic events experienced, and prevalence of carcass bruising Average Carcass Average Average Fat Prevalence Prevalence Number Weight, REA , Thickness, Average of Traumatic of Carcass 2 3 4 Breed Sex of lots, n kg, SEM in, SEM in, SEM YG , SEM Events , SEM Bruising , SEM Beef Heifer 13 371.01 (+ 6.5) 14.09 (+ 0.28) 0.51 (+ 0.02) 2.62 (+ 0.08) 17.2% (+ 3.0%) 67.1% (+ 2.8%) Mixed 8 375.0 (+ 5.7) 14.01 (+ 0.23) 0.56 (+ 0.02) 2.73 (+ 0.10) 18.4% (+ 2.9%) 64.9% (+ 3.5%) Steer 42 419.2 (+ 4.1) 14.12 (+ 0.17) 0.56 (+ 0.02) 2.65 (+ 0.07) 19.5% (+ 1.4%) 66.7% (+ 1.4%) Total 63 403.7 (+ 3.1) 14.1 (+ 0.13) 0.55 (+ 0.03) 2.66 (+ 0.08) 18.9% (+ 1.1%) 66.6% (+ 2.5%) Holstein Steer 12 394.6 (+ 4.2) 13.85 (+ 0.32) 0.57 (+ 0.01) 2.81 (+ 0.05) 28.6% (+ 2.5%) 76.6% (+ 1.2%) Total 75 402.2 (+ 3.6) 14.05 ( ± 0.12) 0.55 (+ 0.01) 2.68 (+ 0.04) 20.4% (+ 1.1%) 68.2% (+ 1.2%) REA = Ribeye area. YG = Yield grade. Prevalence of traumatic event occurrence was calculated dividing the number of traumatic events observed at unloading by the total number of cattle in the trailer. Prevalence of carcass bruising was calculated by dividing the number of carcasses with a bruise present over the total number of animals in the lot. Mixed lot refers to a lot comprised of both heifers and steers. Figure 2. Prevalence of traumatic events for each combination of breed and trailer type. There was a significant interaction between trailer type and cattle breed, whereby Holstein cattle hauled in fat/feeder combination trailers experienced higher prevalence of traumatic events than their beef counterparts. Fat/ feeder combo trailers are those which are used to haul both feeder calves and finished beef cattle. Fat trailers are usually used to haul finished cattle only. The differences between these types of trailers include the presence or absence of a “jail” or “doghouse” in the upper rear compartment of the trailer, used to contain very small calves (present in fat/feeder combo trailers, Beef Quality Assurance, 2006), the presence of a small compartment in the nose of the trailer, used as a counter-balance (also present in fat/feeder combo trailers), and the clearance height of the entrance into the “belly”, or lower compartment of the trailer (approximately 5–8cm shorter in fat/feeder combo trailers). Either type of trailer can have a slide-in or fold-up ramp leading into the upper deck compartment. Carcass Bruising 0.05) was observed with traumatic event prevalence being greatest for Holstein cattle hauled in fat/feeder Average carcass bruise prevalence in finished cattle combination trailers. No other risk factors measured by lot was 68.2% (± 1.15%, Table 3). Prevalence of car- were found to be associated with traumatic event cass bruising in beef breed cattle was 66.6%, compared prevalence in cattle during unloading at the slaughter to a prevalence of 76.6% in Holstein cattle (Table 3, P ≤ facilities (Table 4). 0.05). Over half of the bruises on the beef carcasses ob- Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Risk factors contributing to carcass bruising 493 t able 4. P-values generated from univariable and es were observed on the carcasses than small or large multivariable analyses for the outcome traumatic bruises (Table 7, P ≤ 0.05). events. Only 2-way interactions were evaluated in the When carcass bruising was considered the depen- multivariable analysis. Interaction effects are listed in dent variable, no interactions were observed. However, the order by which they were removed from the model breed and average carcass weight were associated using backward selection at a threshold of P > 0.05 with bruising of cattle carcasses (Table 8). Holstein cattle displayed greater carcass bruising than did beef Univariable Multivariable Final model Independent variable P-values P-values P-values breeds (Table 9, P ≤ 0.05). As average carcass weight Distance 0.7026 0.4542 N/A increased, the prevalence of carcass bruising decreased Sex 0.0091 0.1159 N/A linearly (Fig. 3, P ≤ 0.05). P-values for all univariable Breed 0.0001 0.0042 0.0042 and multivariable analyses for the outcome of carcass Trailer Type 0.0591 0.0507 0.0507 bruising are listed in Table 10. Sex × Trailer N/A 0.8501 N/A Distance × Trailer N/A 0.6945 N/A Distance × Sex N/A 0.2727 N/A Distance × Breed N/A 0.0713 N/A t able 6. Percent of carcass bruising on the front, mid- Breed × Trailer N/A 0.0111 0.0111 dle, and rear thirds of beef carcasses. Equal distribution Sex was categorized as “Steer,” “Heifer,” or “Mixed.” between all regions was expected Breed was categorized as “Beef” or “Holstein.” Bruise location Mean, % SEM, % Fat/feeder combo trailers are those which are used to haul both feeder 1 a calves and finished beef cattle. Fat trailers are usually used to haul finished Front 31.30 1.05 cattle only. The differences between these types of trailers include the pres- 2 b Middle 56.13 1.02 ence or absence of a “jail” or “doghouse” in the upper rear compartment of 3 c Rear 12.57 0.71 the trailer, used to contain very small calves (present in fat/feeder combo a–c trailers, Beef Quality Assurance, 2006), the presence of a small compart- Superscripts indicate a significant difference between the observed values ment in the nose of the trailer, used as a counter-balance (also present in and the expected values of the bruising in each region (P ≤ 0.05). fat/feeder combo trailers), and the clearance height of the entrance into the 1 Bruises along the front third of the carcass were those which occurred “belly”, or lower compartment of the trailer (approximately 2 to 3 inches in areas 7, 8, and 9 (see Fig. 1). shorter in fat/feeder combo trailers). Either type of trailer can have a slide- Bruises along the middle third of the carcass were those which oc- in or fold-up ramp leading into the upper deck compartment. curred in areas 4, 5, and 6 (see Fig. 1). Bruises along the rear third of the carcass were those which occurred in areas 1, 2, and 3 (see Fig. 1). served occurred along the dorsal midline (53.5 ± 1.12%, Table 5, P ≤ 0.05), which is in agreement with previ- ous research using the Harvest Audit Program Bruise t able 7. Percent of carcass bruising categorized as Scoring system and the 2011 National Beef Quality small, medium, or large bruises. Equal distribution Audit (McKeith et al., 2012; Youngers et al., 2016,). between all sizes was expected Carcass bruising was greatest in the middle third of the Bruise size Mean, % SEM, % carcass, followed by the cranial third, then the caudal Small ( < 5cm) 28.64 1.32 third, which is also in agreement with Youngers et al. Medium (5 to 15cm) 41.77 0.97 (2016, Table 6, P ≤ 0.05). More medium-sized bruis- Large ( > 15cm) 29.58 1.81 a-c Superscripts indicate a significant difference between the observed values and the expected values of bruise size. t able 5. Percent of carcass bruising on the left side, the dorsal midline, and the right side of beef carcasses. Equal distribution between all regions was expected t able 8. Estimates of parameters for the fixed effects Bruise location Mean, % SEM, % 1 a of average carcass weight and breed of cattle assessed Left 26.46 1.10 2 b with multiple linear regression Midline 53.52 1.12 3 c Right 19.98 1.04 1 2 Effect Class Estimate SEM P-value a–c Superscripts indicate a significant difference between the observed values Intercept 1.0952 0.1447 < 0.001 and the expected values of the bruising in each region (P ≤ 0.05). Average Carcass Weight –0.00082 0.00035 0.022 Bruises along the left side of the carcass were those which occurred in Breed Beef –0.9515 0.03519 0.009 areas 3, 6, and 9 (see Fig. 1). Holstein Ref. Bruises along the left side of the carcass were those which occurred in Refers to breed of cattle. areas 2, 5, and 8 (see Fig. 1). 3 Parameter estimates. Bruises along the left side of the carcass were those which occurred in areas 1, 4, and 7 (see Fig. 1). Ref. = reference category. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 494 Lee et al. t able 9. Estimate of mean carcass bruise prevalence partment of the trailer, used to contain very small calves per lot by breed (cattle were categorized as either (present in fat/feeder combo trailers, Beef Quality Holstein or beef breeds). Estimates with different Assurance, 2006), the presence of a small compartment superscripts differ significantly ( P ≤ 0.05) in the nose of the trailer, used as a counter-balance (also Class Estimate, % SEM, % present in fat/feeder combo trailers), and the clearance Beef 67.20 3.0 height of the entrance into the “belly”, or lower com- Holstein 76.70 4.3 partment of the trailer (approximately 5 to 8 cm shorter a,b in fat/feeder combo trailers). Either type of trailer can Superscripts indicate a significant difference between the mean estimates. Refers to breed of cattle. have a slide-in or fold-up ramp leading into the upper deck compartment—ramp type was not part of the data collected in this study. dIScuSSIon Holsteins experienced more traumatic events compared to beef breeds when hauled in fat/feeder combination trailers than when hauled in trailers for Traumatic Events fat cattle only. Dairy breeds, particularly Holsteins, An interaction was observed between breed and often display larger frame sizes than their beef breed trailer type when traumatic events were used as the de- counterparts (Long et al., 1979; Tatum et al., 1986). pendent variable. In the United States, trailer types are Therefore, this difference could be due to the decreased usually observed as “fat/feeder combination (combo)” space allowance and clearance in the different trailer trailers, and “fat” trailers. In other countries, such as types and larger frame size of Holstein cattle. Data on Colombia, studies have been conducted exploring the frame size would help to make more solid conclusions effect of transport vehicle on carcass bruising (Romero about the effect height of cattle on traumatic events et al., 2013). However, the trucks and trailers used in experienced. Hip height would be a measure which other countries differ greatly from those used in the could influence the trauma experienced in different United States. In most cases, they are smaller, hold- types of trailers, as taller cattle may be more likely to ing only 14 to 16 animals, with open sides and canvas experience trauma and subsequent bruising. roofing—vastly different from the large aluminum trail- ers used to haul 30–40 animals at a time in the United Carcass Bruising States. In the current study, trailer type was defined by the truck drivers hauling the cattle enrolled. Fat/feeder It is generally accepted that animals which ex- combo trailers are those which are used to haul both perience traumatic events will subsequently display feeder calves and finished beef cattle. Fat trailers are bruising, however the contribution of each traumatic usually used to haul finished cattle only. The differences event to the actual bruising displayed is not well docu- between these types of trailers include the presence or mented (Stedman, 2006; Strappini et al., 2013). The absence of a “jail” or “doghouse” in the upper rear com- correlation between traumatic events and bruising was Figure 3. Relationship between average carcass weight and carcass bruising prevalence by lot for lots of Holstein and beef breed cattle (P ≤ 0.05), results from multivariable linear regression model. Each point on the graph represents a lot of cattle observed. Triangles represent lots of Holstein cattle (n = 12), while dots represent lots of beef breed cattle (n = 63). Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Risk factors contributing to carcass bruising 495 t able 10. P-values generated from univariable and multivariable analyses for the outcome carcass bruising. Only 2-way interactions were evaluated in the multivariable analysis. Interaction effects are listed in the order by which they were removed from the model using backward selection at a threshold of P > 0.05 Independent variable Univariable P-value Multivariable P-value Final model P-value Traumatic Events 0.1158 0.3155 N/A Average Carcass Weight 0.0195 0.0222 0.0222 Distance 0.2169 0.4166 N/A Sex 0.747 0.5208 N/A Breed 0.0078 0.0.0087 0.0087 Ribeye Area 0.2375 0.1019 N/A Average Yield Grade 0.0786 0.4627 N/A Fat Thickness 0.3968 0.5064 N/A Traumatic Events × REA N/A 0.9543 N/A Traumatic Events × Fat Thickness N/A 0.8967 N/A REA × Distance N/A 0.8023 N/A Average Carcass Weight × Distance N/A 0.8797 N/A Traumatic Events × Distance N/A 0.8359 N/A Distance × Breed N/A 0.6229 N/A Fat Thickness × Average YG N/A 0.5394 N/A Average YG × Distance N/A 0.3544 N/A Fat Thickness × Distance N/A 0.7798 N/A Average Carcass Weight × Breed N/A 0.4482 N/A Traumatic Events × Average Carcass Weight N/A 0.3222 N/A REA × Average YG N/A 0.3068 N/A Average YG × Breed N/A 0.1105 N/A Average Carcass Weight × REA N/A 0.1875 N/A Traumatic Events × Breed N/A 0.2778 N/A REA × Breed N/A 0.8703 N/A Average Carcass Weight × Average YG N/A 0.1413 N/A Average Carcass Weight × Fat Thickness N/A 0.3681 N/A Fat Thickness × Breed N/A 0.1259 N/A Traumatic Events × Average YG N/A 0.1139 N/A REA × Fat Thickness N/A 0.0745 N/A Sex was categorized as “Steer,” “Heifer,” or “Mixed.” Breed was categorized as “Beef” or “Holstein.” Ribeye Area = REA. Yield Grade = YG. not found to be related in this study. This could pos- There was no observed effect of distance traveled on sibly be explained due to the fact that traumatic events the prevalence of carcass bruising or traumatic events were only observed at unloading at the slaughter facil- observed in finished cattle. Jarvis et al. (1995a) also ity. No observations were made at other points where found that there was no effect of distance traveled on trauma could occur, such as at loading or during the the bruising scores observed in finished cattle at slaugh- transport process itself. Jarvis et al. (1995b) explored ter. Hoffman et al. (1998) observed that cattle hauled the relationship between the same variables, but found longer distances to slaughter had more bruising on their no significant correlation between potentially traumat - carcasses than cattle hauled shorter distances. However, ic events at unloading and the number of bruises per that study included mature beef cows, which usually animal. Traumatic events and bruising relationships display different physical characteristics than fed cat- due to trailer type could not be directly observed in the tle, such as less fat cover, and more pronounced bony current study, as cattle in the same lot usually arrived prominences. The environment in which these studies in multiple truckloads. After unloading, these loads were conducted must be considered, as the current study were combined back into their original lots and penned focused on fed cattle coming into slaughter facilities together in the slaughter facility holding pens, making which are built relatively close to cattle sources. Jarvis it impossible to measure the effect of trailer type on et al. (1995a) included cattle which traveled up to and actual carcass bruising in the animals observed. over 80 miles, but Hoffman et al. (1998) included cattle Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 496 Lee et al. which had traveled over 580 miles. In the current study, previously, speed of cattle exiting the trucks was not no cattle observed had traveled over 300 miles, and it measured in this study. Grandin (1997) indicated that could be that cattle traveling well over the distances more temperamental or excitable cattle will move faster observed here could display higher carcass bruising. In and are more prone to injury, however bruising was not addition, the sources of the cows were different than the assessed in that review. Fordyce et al. (1985) reported sources of the fed cattle observed here, in that the cows that temperament had no effect on carcass bruising, but used by Hoffman et al. came from ranches and livestock the cattle used in the study were reported to be “rela- auctions, where the cattle observed here came directly tively quiet.” A method to measure flight speed was from the feedlot. Movement through livestock auctions proposed by Vetters et al. (2013) to determine speed of could have contributed to carcass bruising in the cows. cattle at processing, and could potentially be used to In this study, there was no statistical difference be- determine if speed at loading or unloading has an effect tween bruising observed in animals of different sex- on traumatic events or carcass bruising in fed cattle. To es. Previous research has found sex to be a significant better understand how differences in temperament can contributor to the carcass bruising observed at slaugh- affect carcass bruising, temperament scores, handling ter (Romero et al., 2013; Leach, 1982). Research from techniques, and speed at which cattle are moved were Romero et al. (2013) indicated that carcass bruising was not recorded in the current study, but could contribute significantly different between males and females, with to carcass bruising, and should be assessed when con- males displaying more carcass bruising than females. sidering trauma and carcass bruising outcomes. Another study found that male cattle are more likely to Holsteins displayed more carcass bruising than display higher serum creatine kinase (CK) levels, which beef breeds. Dairy breeds, particularly Holsteins, often the authors link to stress and bruising (Mpakama et al., display larger frame sizes than their beef breed counter- 2014). This difference in CK levels has been documented parts (Tatum et al., 1986). Research shows that in feed- in humans as well, and is attributed to larger body mass in er cattle, frame size has a significant effect on carcass males (Brancaccio et al., 2007). However, Leach (1982) weight, where larger frame size leads to higher carcass reported that the occurrence of bruised tissue from cull weight (Dolezal et al., 1993). An interaction between cows was significantly higher than that of steers. Again, breed and average carcass weight would better support animal type and origin must be considered when com- such a hypothesis. Since frame size or hip height were paring results of such studies, as many bruising studies not measured in this study, it is impossible to conclude involve a mixture of fed steers and heifers, cull cows, and the effect of frame size on carcass bruise prevalence. cull bulls. Such variation in animal type and source was Mpakama et al. (2014) reported on the association of not observed here, as all cattle were sourced from feed- breed with creatine kinase levels, but did not report on yards with the sole intent of being slaughtered as fed beef. the relationship between breed and carcass bruising, Results show that average carcass weight was sig- and did not assess the breeds represented in the current nificantly correlated with carcass bruise prevalence. study. In addition, while mature body size is geneti- Intuitively, one may think that bruising would increase cally determined, research shows that it can be altered as carcass weight increased, as there may be increased by nutritional or hormonal factors, including malnutri- risk of trauma, however the opposite effect was ob- tion and hormonal growth implant status (Owens et al., served. As average carcass weight of the lots increased, 1993). In this study, the number of Holstein animals carcass bruise prevalence decreased. Some researchers observed compared to the number of beef animals hypothesized that a decrease in fat cover will lead to could contribute to the lack of a statistically significant increased bruising, as the fatty tissue offers some pro- interaction between breed and average carcass weight. tection from the effects of outside trauma however did More data should be collected to determine how frame not explore the idea extensively (Knowles et al., 1994; size, as measured by hip height or a frame score, affects Strappini et al., 2012). Strappini et al. (2010) did ex- bruising in both beef and Holstein cattle. plore this relationship, and confirmed that as fat cov- er increased, carcass bruising decreased. Due to the Conclusion decreased vascularity of fat, it could be that animals experienced similar events which may cause bruising, While there are limitations to this and many other but the fatty tissue did not hemorrhage as much as the observational studies, the information gleaned here can highly vascular muscle tissue in lighter-weight animals. contribute to an existing knowledge base. Here, Holstein It may be that heavier cattle may move slower than cattle hauled in trailers with smaller dimensions experi- lighter ones, decreasing the pressure at which poten- enced more traumatic events than when hauled on larger tially traumatic events would occur, which may in turn trailers. Holstein cattle also displayed a higher preva- decrease the potential for carcass bruising. As stated lence of carcass bruising than cattle of beef breeds, and Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Risk factors contributing to carcass bruising 497 Long, C. R., T. S. Steward, T. C. Cartwright, and T. G. Jenkins. bruising decreased in both breeds as hot carcass weight 1979. Characterization of cattle of a five breed diallel: I. increased. More research is needed to better understand Measures of size, condition, and growth in bulls. J. Anim. Sci. 49(2):418–431. doi:10.2527/jas1979.492418x how the entire transportation process, including animal Marshall, B. L. 1977. Bruising in cattle presented for slaughter. N. Z. handling at loading and unloading, trailer type, and ani- Vet. J. 25(4):83–86. doi:10.1080/00480169.1977.34367 mal risk factors contribute to carcass bruising in fed cat- McCausland, I. P., and H. W. C. Millar. 1982. Time of occurrence tle. Risk factors such as breed, sex, cattle temperament, of bruises in slaughtered cattle. Aust. Vet. J. 58:253–255. and carcass traits should not be overlooked. In addition, doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.1982.tb00690.x the type of cattle being observed must be considered, McKeith, R. O., G. D. Gray, D. S. Hale, C. R. Kerth, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, C. R. Raines, K. E. Belk, D. R. Woerner, and comparisons between groups should be made with J. D. Tatum, J. L. Igo, D. L. VanOverbeke, G. G. Mafi, T. caution, always remembering that risk factors can dif- E. Lawrence, R. J. Delmore, L. M. Christensen, S. D. fer between the groups. However, no matter what cattle Shackelford, D. A. King, T. L. Wheeler, L. R. Meadows, and group or type is included in subsequent research, carcass M. E. O’Connor. 2012. National Beef Quality Audit—2011: bruising in cattle is a significant economic and animal Harvest-floor assessments of targeted characteristics that af- fect quality and value of cattle, carcasses, and byproducts. J. welfare issue, and only more research can help decrease Anim. Sci. 90:5135–5142. doi:10.2527/jas.2012-5477 the number of animals which experience trauma during Mpakama, T., A. Y. Chulayo, and V. Muchenje. 2014. Bruising in the transport process and carcass bruising at slaughter. slaughter cattle and its relationship with creatine kinase levels and beef quality as affected by animal related factors. Asian-australas. lIterA ture cIted J. Anim. Sci. 27(5):717–725. doi:10.5713/ajas.2013.13483 Owens, F. N., P. Dubeski, and C. F. Hanson. 1993. Factors that Beef Quality Assurance. 2006. Master cattle transporter guide. http:// alter the growth and development of ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. www.bqa.org/resources/manuals National Cattlemen’s Beef 71:3138–3150. doi:10.2527/1993.71113138x Association, Centennial, CO. (Accessed 15 November 2016.) Rezac, D. J. 2013. Gross pathology monitoring at slaughter. Brancaccio, P., N. Maffulli, and F. M. Limongelli. 2007. Creatine Dissertation. Dep. Diag. Med. & Pathobiol. Kansas State kinase monitoring in sport medicine. Brit. Med. Bulletin. 81 University. (Accessed February 2015.) and 82:209–230. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldm014. Romero, M. H., L. F. Uribe-Velasquez, J. A. Sanchez, and G. C. Broom, D. M. 2003. Causes of poor welfare in large animals dur- Miranda-de la Lama. 2013. Risk factors influencing bruis- ing transport. Vet. Res. Commun. 27(Suppl. 1):515–518. ing and high muscle pH in Colombian cattle carcasses due doi:10.1023/B:VERC.0000014210.29852.9a to transport and pre-slaughter operations. Meat Sci. 95:256– Dolezal, H. G., J. D. Tatum, and F. L. Williams, Jr. 1993. Effects 263. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.05.014 of feeder cattle frame size, muscle thickness, and age class Stedman. 2006. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. 28th ed., on days fed, weight, and carcass composition. J. Anim. Sci. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD. 71:2975–2985. doi:10.2527/1993.71112975x Strappini, A. C., J. H. M. Metz, C. B. Gallo, and B. Kemp. 2009. Fordyce, G., M. E. Goddard, R. Tyler, G. Williams, and M. A. Toleman. Origin and assessment of bruises in beef cattle at slaughter. 1985. Temperament and bruising of Bos indicus cross cattle. Aust. Animal 3(5):728–736. doi:10.1017/S1751731109004091 J. Exp. Agric. 25(2):283–288. doi:10.1071/EA9850283 Strappini, A. C., K. Frankena, J. H. M. Metz, B. Gallo, and B. Kemp. Grandin, T. 1980. Bruises and carcass damage. Int. J. Study Anim. 2010. Prevalence and risk factors for bruises in Chilean bovine car- Probl. 1(2):121–137. casses. Meat Sci. 86:859–864. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.07.010 Grandin, T. 1997. Assessment of stress during handling and transport. J. Strappini, A. C., K. Frankena, J. H. M. Metz, C. Gallo, and B. Kemp. Anim. Sci. 75:249–257. doi:10.2527/1997.751249x 2012. Characteristics of bruises in carcasses of cows sourced Hoffman, D. E., M. F. Spire, J. R. Schwenke, and J. A. Unruh. from farms or from livestock markets. Animal 6(03):502–509. 1998. Effect of source of cattle and distance transported to doi:10.1017/S1751731111001698 a commercial slaughter facility on carcass bruises in mature Strappini, A. C., J. H. M. Metz, C. Gallo, K. Frankena, R. Vargas, I. beef cows. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 212(5):668–672. de Freslon, and B. Kemp. 2013. Bruises in culled cows: When, Jarvis, A. M., L. Selkirk, and M. S. Cockram. 1995a. The influ- where and how are they inflicted? Animal 7(03):485–491. ence of source, sex class, and pre-slaughter handling on the doi:10.1017/S1751731112001863 bruising of cattle at two slaughterhouses. Livestock Prod. Sci. Tatum, J. D., F. L. Williams, Jr., and R. A. Bowling. 1986. Effects of 43:215–224. doi:10.1016/0301-6226(95)00055-P feeder-cattle frame size and muscle thickness on subsequent Jarvis, A. M., C. D. A. Messer, and M. S. Cockram. 1995b. growth and carcass development. III. Partitioning of separable car- Handling, bruising, and dehydration of cattle at the time of cass fat. J. Anim. Sci. 62:132–138. doi:10.2527/jas1986.621132x slaughter. Anim. Welf. 5:259–270. Vetters, M. D. D., T. E. Engle, J. K. Ahola, and T. Grandin. 2013. Knowles, T. G., D. H. L. Maunder, P. D. Wariss, T. W. H. Jones. Comparison of flight speed and exit score as measurements 1994. Factors affecting the mortality of lambs in transit to or of temperament in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 91:374–381. in lairage at a slaughterhouse, and reasons for carcase con- doi:10.2527/jas.2012-5122 demnations. Vet. Rec. 135: 109-111. Youngers, M. E., D. U. Thomson, E. F. Schwandt, J. C. Simroth, S. J. Leach, T. M. 1982. Physiology of the transport of cattle. Transport Bartle, M. G. Siemens, and C. D. Reinhardt. 2016. Case Study: of Animals Intended for Breeding, Production, and Slaughter. Prevalence of horns and bruising in feedlot cattle at slaughter. Agric. Research Council, Meat Research Institute, Langford, Prof. Anim. Sci. 33:135–139. doi:10.15232/pas.2016-01551 Bristol, U.K. p. 57–72. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-7582-8_7 Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/4/489/4780405 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018

Journal

Translational Animal Science – Oxford University Press

Published: Dec 1, 2017

There are no references for this article.