T. Grandin
Department of Animal Sciences
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
ABSTRACT: Fear is a very strong stressor, and the highly variable results of handling and transportation studies are likely to be due to different levels of psychological stress. Psychological stress is fear stress. Some examples are restraint, contact wi th people, or exposure to novelty. In many different animals, stimulation of the amygdala with an implanted electrode triggers a complex pattern of behavior and autonomic responses that resemble fear in humans. Both previous experience and genetic factors affecting temperament will interact in complex ways to determine how fearful an animal may become when it is handled or transported. Cattle trained and habituated to a squeeze chute may have baseline cortisol levels and be behaviorally calm, whereas extensively reared animals may have elevated cortisol levels in the same squeeze chute. The squeeze chute is perce ived as neutral and non-threatening to one animal; to another animal, the novelty of it may trigger intense fear. Novelty is a strong stressor when an animal is suddenly confronted with it. To accurately assess an animal's reaction, a combination of behavioral and physiological measurements will provide the best overall measurement of animal discomfort.
Introduction
Studies to determine the amount of stress on farm animals during routine handling and transport often have highly variable results and are difficult to interpret from an animal welfare standpoint. This paper will cover some of the factors that influence how an animal may react during handling. Much of the variability between handling studies is likely to be due to different levels of psychological stress. Animals can be stressed by either psychological stress:
Importance of Fear and Effects of Novelty
Fear is a universal emotion in the animal kingdom and motivates animals to avoid predators. All vertebrates can be fear-conditioned (LeDoux, 1994). The amygdala in the brain is probably the central fear system that is involved in both fear behavior and the acquisition of conditioned fear (Davis, 1992). Davis (1992) cited over 20 animal studies from many different laboratories that showed that electrical stimulation of the amygdala with an implanted electrode triggers a complex pattern of behaviors and changes in autonomic responses that resembles fear in hum ans. In humans, electrical stimulation of the amygdala elicits feelings of fear (Gloor et al., 1981). Studies have also shown that electrical stimulation of the amygdala will increase plasma corticosterone in cats (Setekleiv et al., 1961; Matheson et al., 1971) and in rats (Redgate and Fahringer, 1973). Lesioning of the amygdala will block both unconditioned and conditioned fear responses (Davis, 1992). Large lesions in the amygdala will reduce emotionality in wild rats as measured by flight distance (Kemble et al., 1984). Kemble et al. (1984) also noted that lesioning of the amygdala had a taming effect on wild rats. LeDoux (1994) explains that fear conditioning takes place in a subcortical pathway and that extinguishing a conditioned fear response is difficult because it requires the animal to suppress the fear memory via an active learning process. A single, very aversive event can produce a strong conditioned fear response, but extinguishing this fear response is much more difficult.
Observations by the author on cattle ranches have shown that to prevent cattle and sheep from becoming averse and fearful of a new squeeze chute or corral system, painful or highly aversive procedures should be avoided the first time the animals enter the facility. The same principle also applies to rats. Rats that receive a strong electrical shock the first time they enter a novel alley will refuse to enter it again (Miller, 1960). However, if the rat is subjected to a series of shocks of gradually increasing intensity, it will continue to enter the alley to get a food reward. Therefore, Hutson (1993) recommends that stress in sheep during routine handling could be reduced if the animals were conditioned gradually to handling procedures. Less severe procedures should be done first (Stephens and Toner, 1975; Dantzer and Mormede, 1983).
Novelty is a very strong stressor (Stephens and Toner, 1975; Moberg and Wood, 1982; Dantzer and Mormede, 1983). This is especially true when an animal is suddenly confronted with it. In the wild, novelty and strange sights or sounds are often a sign of danger (Grandin, 1993a). Cattle will balk at shadows or differences in flooring during movement through handling facilities (Grandin, 1980). Pigs that have been trained to laboratory procedures will respond to deviations in their daily routine with a rise in blood pressure (Miller and Twohill, 1983). Reid and Mills (1962) have suggested that livestock can be trained to accept changes in management routines that would cause a significant increase in physiological measurements in animals that had not been trained. Gradual exposure of animals to novel experiences enables them to become accustomed to nonpainful stimuli that had previously evoked a flight reaction. Grandin et al. (1995b) reported that training nyala antelope to cooperate during blood sampling had to be done very slowly to avoid triggering a massive flight reaction. The animals are very vigilant and will react to any unfamiliar sights and sounds.
There are some situations in which novelty is attractive to animals. Cattle and pigs often approach and manipulate a piece of paper dropped on the ground. The author has observed that the same piece of paper will cause animals to balk and jump away if they are being forced to walk toward it. Therefore, the paper may be perceived as threatening in one situation and non-threatening in another. The author has observed that cattle in the Philippines seldom react to cars, trucks, and other distractions when they graze on the highway median strip. Cars and trucks are no longer novel because they have seen them since birth. In the nyala antelope, animals born after the adults had been trained to blood sampling procedures learned to cooperate more quickly (Grand in et al., 1995b).
Cattle can become accustomed to repeated nonaversive procedures such as weighing or drawing blood through an indwelling catheter (Peischel et al., 1980; Alam and Dobson, 1986). Sheep, pigs, and giraffes have been trained to voluntarily enter a restraint device (Panepinto, 1983; Wienker, 1986; Grandin, 1989).
However, animals do not habituate to procedures that are very
aversive (Hargreaves and Hutson, 1990a). A procedure can be highly
aversive without being painful. Full inversion to an upside-down position
is extremely aversive to sheep. The time required to drive sheep down a
race into a restraint device that inverted them increased the following
year (Hutson, 1985). Cortisol levels did not decrease with experience when
cattle were subjected to repeated truck trips during which they fell down
(Fell and Shutt, 1986). Hargreaves and Hutson (199Oa) found that repeated
trials of a sham shearing procedure failed to reduce the stress response.
Sheep also did not habituate to 6 hours of restraint with their legs tied
(Coppinger et al., 1991).
Cattle are very sensitive to the relative aversiveness of
different parts of handling procedures. When they were handled every 30 days
in a squeeze chute and a single animal scale, balking at the scale
decreased with successive experience and balking at the squeeze chute
increased slightly (Grandin, 1992). The animals learned that the scale
never caused discomfort. Cattle that had been mishandled in a squeeze
chute and struck hard on the head by the headgate were more likely to
resist entry into the chute in the future (Grandin et al., 1994) compared
with cattle that had never been hit with the headgate.
Effects of Adaptation to Handling on Stress
Tame animals that are accustomed to frequent handling and close
contact with people are usually less stressed by restraint and handling
than animals that seldom see people. Binstead (1977), Fordyce et al.
(1985), and Fordyce (1987) report that training weanling heifer calves
produced calmer adult animals that were easier to handle. Training these
extensively raised calves involved walking quietly among them, teaching
them to follow a lead horseman and quiet walking through chutes. How an
animal is handled early in life will have an effect on its physiological
response to stressors later in life. Calves on a university experiment
station that had become accustomed to petting by visitors had lower
cortisol levels after restraint than calves that had less frequent
contact with people (Boandle et al., 1989). Lay et al. (1992a) found that
restraint in a squeeze chute was almost as stressful as hot iron branding
for extensively reared beef cattle. In hand-reared dairy cows, branding
was much more stressful than restraint (Lay et al., 1992b).
Taming may reduce the physiological reactivity of the nervous
system. Hastings et al. (1992) found that hand-reared deer had lower
cortisol levels after restraint compared with free-ranging deer. Even
though the physiological response to restraint was lower in the tame
animals, hand-reared deer struggled just as violently as free-range deer
(Hastings et al., 1992). Associations that animals make seem to be highly
specific. Mateo et al. (1991) found that tame sheep approached a person
more quickly, but behavioral measurements of struggling indicated that
taming did not generalize to other procedures. Similar findings by
Hargreaves and Hutson (199Oa,b) showed that gentling and reduction of the
sheep's flight zone failed to reduce aversion to shearing. Tame animals
can sometimes have an extreme flight reaction when suddenly confronted
with novelty that is perceived as a threat. Reports from ranchers and
horse trainers indicate that horses and cattle that are calm and easy to
handle at their home farm sometimes become extremely agitated when
confronted with the novelty of a livestock show or auction. The animal's
behavioral reaction seems to be less likely to generalize to other
procedures than its physiological reaction. Moberg and Wood (1982) found
that experiences during rearing greatly affected behavior in an open
field test but had little effect on adrenocortical response of lambs.
Exposing piglets to novel noises for 20 min. increases both heart rate and
motor activity. Heart rate habituated to a recording of abattoir sounds
more quickly than motor activity (Spensley et al., 1995).
The effects of previous experience on an animal's fear response
may provide one explanation for the often variable results in handling and
transport studies. For example, extensively raised animals may have more
psychological or fear stress during loading and unloading for transport
compared to more intensively reared animals. British researchers have
found that loading and unloading of sheep and calves was the most
stressful part of the journey (Trunkfield and Broom, 1990; Knowles, 1995).
Kenney and Tarrant (1987) reported that for Irish cattle, the actual
journey was more stressful than loading and unloading. The physical
stresses of the trip, such as jiggling, were more stressful than the
psychological stresses of loading or unloading. A possible explanation
for this discrepancy between these two studies may be the amount of
contact the animals had with people. There may be a big difference in the
degree of fear stress between U.S. cattle reared on range land where they
seldom see people and European pasture-reared cattle. Differences in the
degree of psychological stress may explain why too many rest stops during
long-distance transport is detrimental to the health of weaner calves
raised under U.S. conditions. Cattle feeders have learned from practical
experience that 200 to 300-kg calves shipped from the southeast to Texas
will have fewer health problems if they are transported non-stop for the
entire 32-hour trip. For these extensively reared calves, rest stops may
possibly turn into stress stops. Research is needed to conclusively
determine what factors cause the rest stops to be stressful. Legislating
too many rest stops may be detrimental to welfare. One possibility is fear
stress during loading and unloading at rest stops and the second
possibility is that the calves become infected with diseases at the rest stop.
Many of the calves shipped on these trips are not properly vaccinated.
There may be an interaction between rest stops and disease. Frequent rest
stops may be more beneficial to fully vaccinated calves.
Genetics
Genetic factors such as temperament interact in complex ways with an
animal's previous handling experiences and learning to determine how it
will react during a particular handling procedure. Wild species are
usually more reactive to novel stimuli than domesticated animals. Price
(1984) maintains that the domestic phenotype have reduced responses to
changes in the environment. Domesticated animals are more stress-resistant
because they have been selected for a calm attitude toward people
(Parsons, 1988). When deer or antelope are tamed, the flighty temperament
is masked until they are confronted with a novel stimulus that is
perceived as threatening. A tame deer or antelope can have an explosive
reaction to a novel event. A wild species has a more intense flight
response because this enables it to flee from predators.
Temperament in cattle is a heritable trait that may affect the
animal's reaction to handling (Le Neindre et al., 1995). There are
differences in temperament both between and within cattle breeds. Within
the Brahman breed, temperament is heritable (Hearns haw et al., 1979;
Fordyce et al., 1988). Temperament differences between breeds have also
been reported by Stricklin et al. (1980) and Tulloh (1961). Genetics also
affects an animal's response to stress. Brahman cross cattle had higher
cortisol levels while restrained in a squeeze chute compared to English
crosses (Zavy et al., 1992). Recent research by Grandin et al. (1995a) and
replicated by H. Randle (1995, personal communication, University of
Plymouth, U.K.) indicated that the spiral hair whorl on a bovine's
forehead is an indicator of temperament. Cattle with spiral hair whorls
above the eyes became more agitated while restrained than animals with
hair whorls below the eyes.
Temperament may be under genetic control in many different
animals. Research with rats has shown that they can be selected for either
high or low emotionality (Fujita et al., 1994) or for reduced fear induced
aggressiveness toward humans (Popova et al., 1993). Phenotypic
characteristics are also related to temperament. Interestingly, it seems
that different genetic factors control fearinduced aggression and
inter-male aggression. Selection for reduced fear induced aggression had
no effect on aggressive behavior toward other male rats.
Temperament is a trait that seems to be stable over time. In
European Continental-cross cattle, certain individuals became extremely
agitated every time they were handled in a squeeze chute and others were
always calm (Grandin, 1992). The agitated animals failed to adapt to being
held in the squeeze chute during four handling sessions spaced 30 days
apart. Cattle with a very excitable temperament may have greater
difficulty adapting to repeated non painful handling procedures than
cattle with a calmer temperament. The two types of animals may have
differing physiological and behavioral reactions to the same procedure.
Animals with a calm temperament may adapt more easily and become less
stressed with repeated handling treatments and animals with a very
excitable temperament may become increasingly stressed with each repeated
handling treatment. Lanier et al. (1995) found that some pigs habituated
to a swimming task and maintained near baseline levels of epinephrine and
norepinephrine and other animals failed to habituate and never adapted.
At five slaughter plants in the United States, Holland, and
Ireland, the author has observed increasing problems with very excitable
pigs and cattle from certain genetic lines that become highly agitated. It
is almost impossible to drive them quietly through a high-speed slaughter
line. These animals seem to have a much stronger startle reaction to
novelty, are more likely to balk at small distractions such as shadows or
reflections in the race, and are more likely to bunch together.
Observations at slaughter plants and reports from ranchers also indicate
that excitable cattle are more likely to injure themselves when they are
confronted with the novel, unfamiliar surroundings of an auction market or
slaughter plant. The appearance of greater numbers of more excitable pigs
and cattle may possibly be related to the increasing emphasis of the
livestock industry on lean beef and pork. In both cattle and pigs, the
author has observed that excessive excitability occurs most often in
animals bred for leanness that have a slender body shape and fine bones.
Cattle and pigs bred for large, bulging lean muscles usually have a calmer
temperament. This is an area that needs to be researched. Practical
experience indicates that the excitable animal problem needs to be
corrected because excessive excitability creates serious animal welfare
problems during handling at auction markets and slaughter plants.
Cattle and pig producers need to select animals with a calm
temperament, but care must be taken not to over-select for any one
particular trait. A good example of over selection for a single trait is
the halothane gene in pigs. Pigs with this gene have increased meat
production, but the price for this increased production is poor meat
quality (Pommier and Houde, 1993). Over-selection for calm temperament may
possibly have detrimental effects on economically important traits, such
as maternal ability. Researchers in Russia found that selecting foxes for
calmness over 80 years produced animals that lost their seasonal breeding
pattern and had strange piebald black and white colored coats (Belyaev,
1979; Belynev and Borodin, 1982). The foxes turned into animals that
acted and looked like Border collies.
Fear Pheromones
Another factor that could confound handling stress studies is fear
pheromones. Vieville-Thomas and Signoret (1992) found that urine from a
stressed gilt caused other gilts to avoid a feed dispenser and urine from
an unstressed animal had no effect. Both the results of this experiment
and observations by the author indicate that it takes 10 to 15 min. for the
fear pheromone to be secreted. Observations by the author indicate that
cattle will voluntarily walk into a restraining chute that is covered with
blood, but if an animal becomes extremely agitated for several minutes,
the other animals refused to enter (Grandin, 1993b). In a laboratory
setting pigs witnessing slaughter had no increases in either beta
endorphins or cortisol. These were calm animals fitted with jugular
catheters (Anil et al., 1995). Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1970) observed that if a
rat is instantly killed by a trap, the trap will remain effective and can
be used again. Rats will avoid a trap that failed to instantly kill.
Research with rats indicates that blood may contain a fear pheromone
(Stevens and Gerzog-Thomas, 1977). Stevens and Saplikoski (1973) found
that blood and muscle tissue from stressed rats was avoided in a choice
test, whereas brain tissue and water had no effect. Blood from guinea pigs
and people also had little effect (Hornbuckle and Beall, 1974).
Short-Term Stress Measurements
This discussion will be limited to measuring shortterm stress
induced by handling procedures such as being held in a squeeze chute.
Assessment of stress and discomfort should contain both behavioral and
physiological measures. Behavioral indicators of discomfort are
attempting to escape, vocalization, kicking, or struggling. Other
behavioral measures of how an animal perceives a handling procedure are
choice tests and aversion tests. Common physiological measures of stress
are cortisol, beta endorphin, and heart rate. Cortisol is a useful
indicator of short-term stresses from handling or husbandry procedures
such as castration. Researchers must remember that cortisol is a
time-dependent measure that takes 10 to 20 min to reach peak values (Lay
et al., 1992a).
A review of many studies indicates that cortisol levels in cattle
fall into three categories:
Cortisol levels are highly variable and absolute comparisons should not be
made between studies, but the figures on Tables 1 and 2 would make it
possible to determine whether a handling or slaughter procedure was either
very low stress or very high stress. One could tentatively conclude that a
mean value of >70 ng/mL in either steers or cows would possibly be an
indicator of either rough handling or poor equipment, and low values close
to the baseline values would indicate that a procedure was either low
stress or was very quick. Quick procedures would be completed before
cortisol levels could rise. Restraint in a headgate for blood sampling and
slaughter produced similar values (Tables 1 and 2). Mature bulls
have much lower cortisol levels than steers, cows, or heifers (Tennessee
et al., 1984). In one study, there was an extreme mean of 93 ng/mL for
inverting cattle on their backs for 103 seconds (Dunn, 1990). This very
high figure is not due to differences in assay methods because this same
researcher obtained more reasonable values of 45 ng/mL for upright
restraint. Properly performed cattle slaughter seems to be no more
stressful than farm restraint (Tables 1 and 2).
Less clear cut ranges have been obtained in sheep. Pearson et al.
(1977) found that slaughter in a quiet research abattoir produced lower
cortisol levels than slaughter in a noisy commercial plant. The values
were 40 vs 61 ng/mL. Values for shearing and other on-farm handling
procedures were 73 ng/mL (Hargreaves and Hutson, 1990c,d) and 72 ng/mL
(Kilgour and de Langen, 1970). Prolonged restraint and isolation for 2 hours
increased cortisol levels up to 100 ng/mL (Apple et al., 1993).
Creatine phosphokinase ( CPK) and lactate seem to be useful
measures for assessing handling stresses in pigs (Warris et al., 1994).
Warris et al. (1994) found that the sound level of squealing pigs in a
commercial abattoir was highly correlated with CPK measurements. White et
al. (1995) also reported that vocalizations in pigs were indicative of
stress and were correlated with other measures of acute stress, such as
heart rate. Cattle that become behaviorally agitated have higher cortisol
levels (Stahringer et al., 1989). Heart rate in cattle during restraint in
a squeeze chute was highly correlated with cortisol levels (Lay et al.,
1992a,b). Stermer et al. (1981) found that rough handling in poorly
designed facilities resulted in greater heart rates than quiet handling in
well designed facilities.
Isolation is also a factor in handling stress. During restraint
for routine husbandry procedures, animals are often separated from their
conspecifics. Stookey et al. (1994) found that cattle became less
behaviorally agitated during weighing on a single animal scale if they
could see another animal in the chute less than 1 meter away in front of the
scale. Agitation was measured electronically by measuring movement and
jiggling via the scale load cell system. Numerous studies have shown that
isolation from conspecifics will raise cortisol and other physiological
measures (Kilgour and deLangen, 1970; Whittlestone et al., 1970; Arave et
al., 1974).
Aversion Tests
Aversion to a handling procedure can be measured by either choice
testing or measuring aversion. One measure of aversion is the time
required to induce an animal to re-enter a chute where it was previously
handled (Rusher, 1986a,b 1995). In a choice test, the animals are allowed
to choose between two different chutes that lead to different procedures
(Grandin et al., 1986; Rushen and Congdon, 1986a,b). Another useful
measure is the degree of force required to induce an animal to move
through a race. In some cases, measuring the degree of force provides a
more accurate assessment of aversion than time. Examples of force are the
number of pats on the rump or number of electrical prods. Experience and
genetic factors can confound aversion tests. Rushen (1996) warns that to
accurately measure aversion in a race, the animal must experience the
aversive procedure more than once. Observations by the author indicate
that excitable cattle sometimes run through a single file chute quickly in
an attempt to escape. Research (in progress by Bridgette Voisinet and the
author) reveals that bulls trained to move through a race to a squeeze
chute exhibit no aversion in the race after a single noxious treatment.
After one aversive treatment, they continued to voluntarily walk through
the race into the squeeze chute, but balking and turning back in the crowd
pen at the entrance to the race greatly increased. At this point, the
animals may perceive that they may be able to avoid re-entering the race.
In aversion studies, balking and other behaviors indicative of aversion
must be measured in both the single file race and in the pens and alleys
that lead up to the entrance of the single file race. This is especially
important if the aversive procedure is performed only once. After the
animal is forced to enter the chute that leads to the squeeze, it may
perceive that it may be able to escape by running quickly through it
toward the squeeze chute. Under certain conditions, choice tests may be
unreliable for measuring choices between mildly aversive procedures.
Research conducted by Grandin et al. (1994) showed that cattle are
reluctant to change a previously learned choice if the two choices in a
choice test are only mildly aversive. Other research showed that sheep
immediately switched sides to avoid highly aversive electro-immobilization
(Grandin et al., 1986).
Implications
Both researchers and people making decisions about animal welfare
must understand that fear during non-painful routine handling and
transport can vary greatly. Fear is a very strong stressor. Cattle that
have been trained and habituated to a handling procedure may be completely
calm and have baseline cortisol and heart rate measurements during
handling and restraint. Extensively reared cattle with an excitable
disposition may have very high cortisol levels and show extreme behavioral
agitation during the same procedure. For one animal, a squeeze chute may
be perceived as neutral and non-threatening, but to another it may trigger
an extreme fear response. The animal's response will be determined by a
complex interaction of genetics and previous experience. Studies to assess
animal welfare during handling and transport should contain both
behavioral and physiological measurements.
Anil, M. H., J. L. McKinstry, M. Field, M. Bracke, and R. G.
Rodway (1995)
Apple, J. K., M. E. Dikeman, J. E. Minton, R. M. McMurphy,
M. R. Fedde, D.
E. Leith, and J. A. Unrah (1995)
Apple, J. K., J. E. Minton, K. M. Parsons, and J. A. Unrah
(1993)
Arave, C. W., J. L. Albright, and C. L. Sinclair
(1974)
Belyeev, D. K. (1979)
Belyaev, D. K, and P. M. Borodin (1982)
Binstead, M. (1977)
Boandle, K. E., J. E. Wohlt, and R. V. Carsia (1989)
Cockram, M. S., and K.T.T. Corley (1991)
Coppinger, T. R., J. E. Minton, P. G. Reddy, and F. Blecha
(1991)
Crookshank, H. R., M. H. Elissalde, R. G. White, D. C. Clanton,
and H. E. Smalley (1979)
Dantzer, R., and P. Mormede (1983)
Davis, M. (1992)
Dunn, C. S. (1990)
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1970)
Ewbank, R., M. J. Parker, and C. W. Mason (1992)
Fell, L. R., and D. A. Shutt (1986)
Fordyce, G. (1987)
Fordyce, G., R. M. Dodt, and J. R. Wythes (1988)
Fordyce, G., M. E. Goddard, R. Tyler, C. Williams, and M. A.
Toleman
(1985)
Fujita, O., Y. Annen, and A. Kitaoka (1994)
Gloor, P., A. Olivier, and L. F. Quesney (1981)
Grandin, T. (1980)
Grandin, T. (1989)
Grandin, T. (1992)
Grandin, T. (1993a)
Grandin, T. (1993b)
Grandin, T., S. E. Curtis, T. M. Widowski, and J. C. Thurmon
(1986)
Grandin, T., M. J. Deesing, J. J. Struthers, and A. M. Swinker
(1995a)
Grandin, T., M. B. Rooney, M. Phillips, R. C. Cambre, N. A.
Irlbeck, and
W. Graffam (1995b)
Grandin, T., K G. Odde, D. N. Schutz, and L. M. Beherns
(1994)
Hargreaves, A. L., and G. D. Hutson (1990a)
Hargreaves, A. L., and G. D. Hutson (1990b)
Hargreaves, A. L., and G. D. Hutson (1990c)
Hargreaves, A. L., and G. D. Hutson (1990d)
Hastings, B. E., D. E. Abbott, and L. M. George(1992)
Hearnshaw, H., R. Barlow, and G. Want (1979)
Henricks, D. M., J. W. Cooper, J. C. Spitzer, and L. W. Grimes
(1984)
Hornbuckle, P. A., and T. Beall (1974)
Hutson, G. D. (1985)
Hutson, G. D. (1993)
Kemble, E. D., D. C. Blanchard, R. J. Blanchard, and R.
Takushi (1984)
Kenny, F. J., and P. V. Tarrant (1987)
Kilgour, R., and H. de Langen (1970)
Knowles, T. G. (1995)
Lanier, E. K, T. H. Friend, D. M. Bushong, D. A. Knabe, T. H.
Champney,
and D. G. Lay, Jr. (1995)
Lay, D. C., Jr., T. H. Friend, C. L. Bowers, K. K Grissom, and
O. C.
Jenkins (1992a)
Lay, D. C., Jr., T. H. Friend, R. D. Randel, C. L. Bowers, K K
Grissom,
and O. C. Jenkins (1992b)
LeDoux, J. E. (1994)
Le Neindre, P., G. Trillet, J. Sapa, F. Menissier, J. N.
Bonnet, and J. M.
Chupin (1995)
Mateo, J. M., D. Q. Estep, and J. S. McCann (1991)
Matheson, B. K., B. J. Branch, and A. N. Taylor (1971)
McGlone, J. J., J. L. Salak, E. A. Lumpkin, R. L. Nicholson, M.
Gibson,
and R. L. Norman (1993)
Miller, N. E. (1960)
Miller, K N., and S. Twohill (1983)
Mitchell, G., J. Hattingh, and M. Ganhao (1988)
Moberg, G. P., and V. A. Wood (1982)
Panepinto, L. M. (1983)
Parsons, P. A. (1988)
Pearson, A. J., R. Klgour, H. de Langen, and E. Payne
(1977)
Peischel, A., R. R. Schalles, and C. E. Owensby (1980)
Pommier, S. A., and A. Houde (1993)
Popova, N. J., E. M. Nikulina, and A. V. Kulikov
(1993)
Price, E. O. (1984)
Ray, D. E., W. J. Hansen, B. Theurer, and G. H. Stott
(1972)
Redgate, E. S., and E. E. Fahringer (1973)
Reid, R. I., and S. C. Mills (1962)
Rushen, J. (1986a)
Rushen, J. (1986b)
Rushen, J. (1996)
Rushen, J., and P. Congdon (1986a)
Rushen, J., and P. Congdon (1986b)
Setckleiv, J., O. E. Skaug, and B. R. Kaada (1961)
Spensley, J. C., C. M. Wathes, N. K Waran, and J. A. Lines.
(1995)
Stahringer, R. C., R. D. Randel, and D. A. Neuenforff
(1989)
Stephens, D. B., and J. N. Toner (1975)
Stermer, R., T. H. Camp, and D. G. Stevens (1981)
Stevens, D. A., and N. J. Saplikoski (1973)
Stevens, D. A., and D. A. Gerzog-Thomas (1977)
Stooky, J. M., T. Nickel, J. Hanson, and S. Vandenbosch
(1994)
Stricklin, W. R., C. E. Heisler, and L. L. Wilson
(1980)
Tennessen, T., M. A. Price, and R. T. Berg (1984)
Trunkfield, H. R., and D. M. Broom (1990)
Tulloh, N. M. (1961)
Tume, R. K., and F. D. Shaw (1992)
Vieville-Thomas, C., and J. P. Signoret (1992)
Warriss, P. D., S. N. Brown, and M. Adams (1994)
White, R.G.,J.A. DeShazer, C.J. Tressler, G.M. Borcher, S. Davy,
A. Waninge, A.M. Parkhurst, M.J. Milanuk, and E.T. Clemens (1995)
Whittlestone, W.G., R. Kilgour, H. de Langen, and G.Duirs (1970)
Wienker, W.R. (1986)
Zavy, M.T., P.E. Juniewicz, W.A. Phillips, and D.L. Von Tungeln
(1992) Click here to return to the Homepage for more information on animal behavior, welfare, and care.
Cortisol level, ng/mL
Breed
Gender
Study
Baseline
.5 to 2
Friesian
Bulls
Tennessen et al., 1984
2
Friesian
Cows
Alam and Dobson, 1986
3
Angus cross
Bull calves
Henricks et al., 1984
6
Angus cross
Heifer calves
Henricks et al., 1984
9
Friesland and Nuguni
Cows
Mitchell et al., 1988
Restraint in headgate
13
Holstein cows
Hand-reared
Lay et al., 1992a
24 (weaned 2 wk before test)
Unknown British or European
Weanlings, mixed genders
Crookshank et al., 1979
27
Brahman cross
Steers
Ray et al., 1972
28
Angus X Hereford
Steers
Zavy et al., 1992
30
Simmental X Hereford X Brahman
83% Steers
Lay et al., 1992b
36
Angus X Brahman
Steers
Zavy et al., 1992
46 (weaned day of test)
Unknown British or European
Mixed genders
Crookshank et al., 1979
63
Brahman X Hereford X Afrikander
Steers and heifers
Mitchell et al., 1988
Extreme Value
93
Unknown British or European
Mixed
Dunn, 1990
Cortisol level, ng/mL
Handling Methods
Study
Baseline quiet research abattoir
15
Held in head restraint, shot immediately with captive bolt
Tume and Shaw, 1992
Commercial slaughter plant
24
Handled quietly in conventional stunning box
Ewbank et al., 1992a
32
Unknown
Mitchell et al., 1988
44
Conventional stunning box
Tume and Shaw, 1992
45
Conventional stunning box
Dunn, 1990a
51
Poorly designed head restraint only 14% of cattle voluntarily entered
it
Ewbank et al., 1992a
63 (median)
Electric prod all cattle, 38% animals slipped, conventional stun box
Cockram and Corley, 1991a
Extreme stress
93
Inverted on back for 103 s
Dunn, 1990a
Alam, M.G.S., and H. Dobson (1986)
Vet. Rec. 118:7
Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Sci., paper 190
J. Anim. Sci. 73:2295
J. Anim. Sci. 71:71
J. Dairy Sci. 59:1497
J. Hered. 70:301
Biol. Zentbl.
100:705
Queensland Agric. J. 103:293
J. Dairy Sci. 72:2193
Br. Vet. J.
147:444
J. Anim. Sci.
69:2808
J. Anim. Sci. 48:430
J. Anim. Sci.
57:6
Annul Rev. Neurosci. 15:353
Vet. Rec.
126:522
p 236. Holt Rhinehart and Winston, New
York
Anim. Welfare
1:55
Canad. J. Anim.
Sci. 66:637
Queensland Agric. J. 113:323
Aust. J. Exp. Agric.
28:683
Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 25:283
Behav. Gen.
24:389
In: Y. Ben Avi (Ed.) The Amygdaloid Complex. Elsevier, New York
Appl. Anim. Ethol.
6:19
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
23:257
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
36:1
In: T. Grandin (Ed.) Livestock Handling and Transport. p
43. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, U.K.
In: T. Grandin (Ed.) Livestock Handling and Transport. p 289. Wallingford,
Oxon, U.K.
J. Anim. Sci.
62:1469
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 46:117
Zoo Biol.
14:261
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 39:21
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
26:253
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 26:243
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 26:83
Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 26:91
Res. in Vet. Sci. 53:
375
Proc. Aust.
Assoc. Anim. Breed. and Genet. 1:164
J. Anim. Sci.
59:376
Behav. Biol.
12:573
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
14:263
In: T. Grandin (Ed.) Livestock Handling and Transport. CAB International,
Wallingford, Oxon, U.K
Physiol.
Behav. 32:131
Livest.
Prod. Sci. 17:63
Proc. N. Z. Soc. of Anim. Prod.
30:65
Br. Soc. Anim. Sci., Winter Meeting (Summary), Paper
43
J. Anim. Sci. 73(Suppl. 1):126
(Abstract)
J. Anim. Sci.
70:1121
J. Anim. Sci.
70:330
Sci. Am. 271: 50
J. Anim. Sci. 73:2249
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
32:45
Brain Res. 32:151
J. Anim. Sci. 71:888
J. Exp.
Psychol. 60:137
Lab Anim.
12(6):51
Vet. Rec. 123:
201
Appl. Anim. Ethol. 8:269
Lab. Anim. Sci.
33:95
Behav. Gen. 18:293
N.Z.
Soc. Anim. Prod. 37:243
J. Anim. Sci. 51(Suppl.
1):245 (Abstract)
J. Anim. Sci.
71:420
Behav. Gen.
23:491
Q. Rev. Biol. 59:1
Proc. West. Sect. Am. Soc.
Anim. Sci. 23:255
Neuroendocrinology
12:334
Aust. J.
Agric. Res. 13:282
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 15:315
Applied Animal
Behavioural Science 16:363
Journal of Animal Science 74:1990
Australian Journal of Experimental
Agriculture 26:535
Australian Veterinary Journal 63:373
Journal of
Endocrinology 22:119
Applied Animal Behavioural
Science 44:277 (Abstract)
Journal of Animal Science 67(Suppl.1):359
(Abstract)
Applied Animal Ethology
1:233
Paper
No. 81-6001. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MO
Behavioural Biology 8:75
Physiology of Behaviour 18:47
Journal of Animal Science 72(Suppl.1):207
(Abstract)
Journal of Animal Science (Suppl.1) 51:109 (Abstract)
Canandian Journal of Animal Science
64:333
Applied Animal Behavioural Science 28:135
Animal Behaviour
9:25
Meat Science
31:211
Journal of Chemical Endocrinology
18:1551
Meat
Science 38:329
J. Anim. Sci. 73:381
J. Milk Food Technol. 33:217
Zoo Biol. 5:371
Am. J. Vet. Res. 53:551