Evaluating Beef Cattle Stockmanship

The behavior and actions of stockmen have a direct effect on the behavior and welfare of livestock (Zulkifli, 2013). In simple terms, this means an animal’s action, or inaction, is the result of the actions or inactions of the stockperson. Behavioral research in beef cattle (Probst et al., 2013; Petherick et al., 2009a), has shown that an animal’s response is dependent on the quality of treatment received from their human handlers. Support also exists for the theory that livestock may be able to differentiate between handlers based on their familiarity with the stockperson and the quality of the stockperson’s handling (Boivin et al., 1998). Beef cattle will habituate to common handling practices and human contact by frequent exposure (Maston, 2006), especially at a younger age (Etim et al., 2013; Fukasawa, 2012). However, livestock will not habituate to painful procedures and adverse handling practices (Grandin et al., 1986).

Livestock handling involves the restraint of animals and encouraging a desired movement in a way that minimizes fearful reactions (Gonyou, 1995). Stockpersons are encouraged to be calm, quiet, slow, and deliberate when working animals (Grandin, 2015). Furthermore, stockmen need to understand the behaviors of cattle and their physiology to take advantage of their natural prey instinct when herding (Grandin & Deesing, 2008). Evaluating stockmanship is critical for assuring positive animal welfare (Grandin, 2014; Grandin, 2001). This fact sheet provides guidance for evaluation of stockmanship using animal-based and stockman-based evaluation tools.

Animal-Based Measurements

The Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) Feedyard, Cow/Calf, and Stocker Assessments (BQA.org, n.d.) utilize animal behavior criteria to evaluate the quality of animal handling at cattle operations. The criteria, developed by Dr. Temple Grandin (2015), provide an objective measurement of handler actions and cattle behavior at the chute. To conduct the audit, the assessor observes the processing of 100 head of cattle. If fewer than 100 head are processed, then all the cattle going through the chute are scored. Each animal is observed for display of the criteria, and the results are recorded based on an evaluation of specific criteria:

• Electric prod use: Prod use is defined as discharging electric current while in contact with the animal. It is to be assumed that a prod touching an animal is being discharged. Prod use is only counted once per animal. Target goal is ≤ 10%.
• Miscatch: Miscatch is defined as the animal being in any position other than with its head fully outside of the front catch and the balance of the body within the chute. It is acceptable for an animal to be miscaught, if the catch is readjusted prior to any procedures being conducted on the animal. This criterion is only recorded if the animal is miscaught and a subsequent procedure is performed without catch adjustment. Target goal is 0%.
• Vocalization: Any audible vocalization during chute handling that is not related to the processing activity. Vocalization as an injection is given is permissible. Target goal ≤ 5%.
• Jump or run: The cattle jump when exiting the chute or the cattle run when exiting the chute. Target goal ≤ 25%.
• Stumble: The animal stumbles when exiting the chute and their knee or hock touches the ground. Target goal ≤ 10%.
• Fall: Cattle fall when released from the chute and the animal’s chest, torso/belly, or rump touches the ground. Target goal ≤ 2%.

To score the assessment, the total head that displayed actions meeting the criteria for the observation point are totaled and a percent occurrence is calculated. As previously noted, each observation point has its own target goal. If the goal is exceeded, the general recommendation is to provide additional training and/or further monitoring of cattle handler behaviors from the hold pen to the processing chute.

View the BQA assessments and their corresponding scoresheets  (bqa.org/resources/templates-assessments).

Livestock-Handler Evaluation

A cattle facility manager should know which stockperson’s actions led to observed negative animal behaviors. The stockman’s scorecard (Yost et al., 2020a; Yost et al., 2020b) is a tool that evaluates individual stockmen and identifies specific points that can be addressed during stockmanship training. The instrument (Figure 1) has been divided into three distinct skill sections:

1. situational awareness
2. herding skill
3. noise/physical contact

Each skill section is based on common themes highlighted in published research (Grandin & Dreesing, 2008). For each skill, potential stockperson actions/behaviors have been identified that can be interpreted as producing a positive animal handling outcome (no points deducted), a minor fault action (minus five points) that may be negative or have no effect on the activity outcome, or a major fault action (minus 10 points) that highlights actions proven to be detrimental to producing a positive, animal-handling outcome.

When evaluating a stockperson, the observer positions himself or herself in a location where it is possible to monitor the stockperson herding cattle but not interfere with the activity. The evaluator observes the stockperson throughout the activity and places a checkmark next to any actions listed on the card that were observed during the session. At the conclusion, the negative points are totaled and then subtracted from 100 points to determine the final score.

Situational Awareness

This section identifies the handler’s ability to see the big picture of the animal handling activity. Does the individual understand the environment/facility design where the activity is taking place, evaluate the temperament of the cattle that are being handled, and work effectively as a member of a team to complete the assigned task?

• Teamwork: How well does the individual work as part of the team? Do they take direction from others, or do their own thing, which hinders the efficiency of the activity?
  • Minus 10 example - Are they given instructions during the animal movement, but ignore the instruction? Are they constantly in the wrong place hindering the activity? Do they appear to “take offense” to being given instructions from other handlers?
  • Minus five example - Do they take direction, but appear to be inexperienced and not know where to position themselves? Are they sometimes in the wrong place?
  • Positive example - Do they take direction, and provide direction as a team member? Do they consistently position themselves to fulfill their role in the activity?
• Overcrowding: Concerns the effectiveness in moving animals through a pinch point, such as a gate opening or the entrance into the alley leading to the chute.
  • Minus 10 example - Does the handler try to force a large group of animals out of the gate causing a “pile up?” Do they overfill the tub leading to the chute (50%–60% capacity is full), causing the animals to pile up while they continue to apply pressure?
  • Minus five example - Does the handler unintentionally cause animals to pile up at the gate opening, or overfill the tub leading to the chute, but then stop applying pressure to allow the animals to sort it out? Be aware that cattle in this circumstance must have a place to go.
  • Positive example - Does the handler position themselves, or direct someone to position themselves, at the gate opening to regulate the flow of cattle through the gate? Does the handler only fill half the tub and patiently allow the cattle to enter the alleyway?
• Blind Spot: Does the handler understand the concept, or location, of an animal’s blind spot?
  • Minus 10 example - Does the handler immediately approach an unaware animal in the blind spot? Does the handler attempt to stay in the animal’s blind spot? Be aware that a handler who doesn’t understand the dynamics of blind spots may be kicked multiple times.
  • Minus five example - When the handler, unknowingly, enters a blind spot, they make sure they don’t repeat that mistake. Be aware that a handler may be kicked.
  • Positive example - The handler makes the animal aware of their presence before entering the blind spot. Handler only works in an animal’s blind spot when necessary. Handler works to stay out of blind spot as they are moving the animals.

Herding Skill

This theme evaluates the handler’s understanding of cattle behavior and physiology as it relates to herding.

• Flight Zone: Evaluates the handler’s understanding of the principle for initiating and stopping animal movement.
  • Minus 10 example - The handler constantly penetrates too deeply into an animal’s or  group of cattle’s flight zone, causing animals to turn in the wrong direction. Handler is unwilling to apply sufficient pressure to encourage cattle to move in the desired direction.
  • Minus five example - Handler works on the edge of the flight zone, but fails to take proper action if an animal, or animals, break away from the group. An example is an animal breaking away from the group and the handler spending unneeded time trying to bring the animal back into the group.
  • Positive example - Handler works edge of the flight zone and moves into and out of the flight zone to encourage animals to move at their own pace. Handler allows animals that break away to rejoin the group on their own.
• Point of Balance: Does the handler understand the application of the point of balance concept?
  • Minus 10 example - When moving animals in an alleyway, the handler constantly stands behind the animals rather than taking advantage of their escape instincts and the point of balance technique—walking opposite the flow of animals to encourage their movement through the alleyway.
  • Minus five example - When in the alleyway leading to the chute, or in another confined space, the handler stands in front of the point of balance and taps the animal on the rump in an attempt to move it forward.
  • Positive example - Handler turns any animal in any direction desired. When in an alleyway, the handler walks alongside the cattle in the opposite direction of animal movement to take advantage of their escape instinct and the point of balance technique.

Noise/Physical Contact

This section evaluates the handler’s use of noise and physical contact to move livestock. How effective is the handler at using noise as a tool to assist with moving livestock? Does the handler understand how to effectively use a driving aid in a productive manner? If physical contact is necessary, is the handler able to demonstrate a calm/gentle approach to its application?

• Human Vocalization: A human voice can be used as a handling tool if not excessive. Speak to animals in the same fashion and volume you would speak to a human.
• While vocalization may be necessary to move an animal, does the handler use the proper amount and volume of noise?
  • Minus 10 example - The handler yells during the entire animal-handling activity, even when animals are moving in the desired direction. The amount of yelling is interpreted as abusive and is forcing animals to move at a faster-than-normal pace.
  • Minus five example - The handler constantly uses vocal cues while animals are moving in the desired direction. Vocal noises are low volume, but unnecessarily consistent, and cause animals to move at a faster than normal pace.
  • Positive example - Vocalization is only used as a means to gain animals’ attention. Once animals are moving in the desired direction, vocalization stops. The handler doesn’t use vocalization to scare animals and only speaks in a normal voice and volume.
• Artificial Noise: This evaluates the handler’s use of artificial noise (banging driving aids on facility, slamming gates, honking horns on motorized vehicles) to move livestock.
  • Minus 10 example - The handler constantly, and potentially violently, bangs driving aids on facility components. The handler slams gates to create a metallic sound to frighten livestock; constantly honks horn on motorized vehicle to frighten animals; and/or forces animals to run.
  • Minus five example - Unnecessarily uses a driving aid to generate non-metallic noise which causes animals to move at a faster than normal pace.
  • Positive example - Only uses artificial noise to gain animal’s attention. Avoids creating metallic noise.
• Physical Contact: This category gauges the handler’s ability to control their temper during animal handling.
  • Minus 10 example – The handler uses an electric prod as the primary driving aid. Frequently shocks animals without trying another movement technique. Uses excessive physical contact in attempts to make stationary animals move (hitting, kicking). Slams gates into animals. Engages in over-aggressive tail twisting that could result in breaking the animal’s tail.
  • Minus five example - Forceful contact with animal but only observed once. Twists tail on animal (not overly aggressive) but does not release twist when animal begins to move. Uses electric prod sparingly but applies it at the wrong time.
  • Positive example - Electric prod is only used as tool of last resort when all other means of creating movement have failed. Releases tail twist when animal moves. Gentle pats to encourage animal movement. Observed stroking stationary animals on back or sides as a means to calm the animal.

References

BQA.org. (n.d). BQA feedyard assessment. Beef Quality Assurance.
bqa.org/resources/templates-assessments

Boivin, X., Garel, J. P., Mante, A. & Neindre, P. L. (1998). Beef calves react differently to different handlers according to the test situation and their previous interactions with their caretaker. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 55(3–4), 245–257.
doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00050-6

Etim, N. N., Offiong, E. E. A., M. D., Udo, Williams, M. E.  & Evans, E. I.. (2013). Physiological relationship between stress and reproductive efficiency. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America. 4(6), 600–604.
scihub.org/ABJNA/PDF/2013/6/ABJNA-4-6-600-604.pdf

Fukasawa, M. (2012). The calf training for loading onto vehicle at weaning. Animal Science Journal. 83(11): 759-766.  DOI:10.1111/j.1740-0929.2012.01020.x

Gonyou, H.W. (1995). How Animal handling influences animal behavior.  Praire Swine Centre, Inc. 1995 Annual Research Report.
prairieswine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/1995-PSC-Annual-Report.pdf

Grandin, T., Curtis, S. E., Widowski, T. M. & Thurmon, J. C.. (1986). Electro-immobilization versus mechanical restraint in an avoid-avoid choice test for ewes. J. Anim. Sci. 62(6),1469–1480.
doi.org/10.2527/jas1986.6261469x

Grandin, T. & Deesing, M. (2008). Human livestock handling: Understanding livestock behavior and building facilities for healthier animals. Storey Publishing.

Grandin, T. (2001). Livestock-handling quality assurance. J. Anim. Sci. 79(E suppl.), E239-E248.
doi:10.2527/jas2001.79E-SupplE239x

Grandin, T. (2015). How to improve livestock handling and reduce stress. In: T. Grandin (Ed.), Improving animal welfare: A practical approach. (2^nd ed., pp. 69–95). CAB International.

Grandin, T. (2014). Animal welfare and society concerns finding the missing link. Meat Science, 98(3), 461–469.
doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.05.011

Matson, K.M. (2006). The effect of weekly handling on the temperament of peripuberal crossbred heifers (Master’s Thesis).  Retrieved from VtechWorks. (2014-03-14T20:38:27Z)Petherick, J.C., Doogan, V. J., Holroyd, R. G., Olsson, P. & Venus, B. K. (2009a). Quality of handling and holding yard environment, and beef cattle temperament: 1. Relationships with flight speed and fear of humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 120(1–2), 18–27.
doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.05.008

Probst, J.K., Hillmann, E., Leiber, F., Kreuzer, M. & Neff, S. N. (2013). Influence of gentle touching applied few weeks before slaughter on avoidance distance and slaughter stress in finishing cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 144(1–2),  14–21.
doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.12.007

Yost, J. K., J. W. Yates, M. P. Davis & Wilson, M. E. (2020a). The stockman’s scorecard: Validity and reliability as an instrument for measuring stockmanship. Journal of Extension, 58(2).
tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1171&context=joe

Yost, J. K., Yates, J. W., Davis, M. P., & Wilson, M. E. (2020b). The Stockman’s scorecard: Quantitative evaluation of beef cattle stockmanship. Translational Animal Science, 4(4).
doi:10.1093/tas/txaa175

Zulkifli, I. (2013). Review of human-animal interactions and their impact on animal productivity and welfare. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 4(1), 25.
doi:10.1186/2049-1891-4-25