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

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

Beef Quality Assurance national rancher survey: program participation, best management practices, and motivations for joining future sustainability programs.

Till date, with over 137,000 certified members, the most successful rancher educational program has been the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program. The BQA program was established in the mid-1990's to improve animal health and welfare with a primary objective to reduce the incidence of injection site lesions by instructing producers to administer injections in the neck only. The present study investigated the drivers of this success to inform future rancher education programs around agricultural sustainability. An online multistate survey was administered to cattle ranchers in collaboration with state cattlemen's associations to better understand rancher motivations for adopting new practices and to gain insight on current involvement in BQA. In total, the survey consisted of 45 questions and was divided into 3 sections: (1) rancher demographics, (2) BQA participation and current best management practice (BMP) application, and (3) willingness to join new rancher educational programs. Data from 842 respondents are including in this study. Of the survey participants, 70% were currently BQA certified or had been BQA certified at one time, and 30% had never been certified. Ranchers who were BQA certified at any time were less likely to administer injections in areas other than the neck compared to ranchers who were not certified (P < 0.05), demonstrating the effectiveness of the BQA program. More than 80% of survey respondents who joined the BQA program stated they believed the BQA program improved animal health and welfare on their operation (n = 617). Among those who had not joined the BQA program, 40% believed BQA practices did not align with their ranching operation, while 38% had not heard of the BQA program (n = 256). The survey indicated that male ranchers, those with more years ranching, those with a larger percent of income coming from ranching, and ranches with larger total acres grazed were more likely to be BQA certified at any time (P < 0.05). Finally, ranchers who were BQA certified at any time were more likely to state that joining a rancher sustainability program would be beneficial to their operation. In conclusion, not only did the survey provide valuable insight into BQA program adoption but highlighted how BQA pedagogy and program structure may be a suitable framework for creating future rancher sustainability programs.

Survey of cow-calf producer perspectives on management strategies and industry challenges. Part 1: handling practices, and health and industry challenges.

The objectives of this study were to benchmark cow-calf producer perspectives on management strategies and challenges, and to determine if demographic differences and Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) certification status influenced the frequency of certain management strategies. A total of 1,414 responses from cow-calf producers in 44 states were collected through an online survey conducted in partnership with BEEF, a producer-focused magazine. Survey recipients were asked 30 questions to gather demographic information, respondents' current handling and health management practices, and how they prioritized industry challenges. The frequency of management methods and decisions such as preconditioning and identification methods were impacted by respondent age, operation size, location, and BQA certification (Ps ≤ 0.009). BQA-certified respondents more frequently used electronic ear tags and freeze branding (Ps = 0.009). Overall, 74.5% of respondents were preconditioning their calves. Respondents who were BQA certified more frequently preconditioned their calves (449; 81.5%) compared with those who were not BQA certified (582; 70.4%) (P < 0.001). BQA training seems to be having a positive impact on production practices. Respondents identified cow-calf health as the biggest beef industry challenge and identified land availability or price as the biggest challenge to producers' own operation. Respondents identified bovine respiratory disease, flies, pinkeye, and reproductive health as the most important animal health issues on producers' operations. Health challenge responses varied significantly by producer age, beef cow inventory, and region of the United States (Ps < 0.001). Calf or neonate health was most commonly identified as the biggest challenge for respondents under the age of 30 years. Producers between the ages of 55 and 70 years most commonly responded that the Veterinary Feed Directive or regulations were more of a challenge than other age groups. Respondents clearly identified managing herd health as a challenge throughout the survey. Respondents with similar herd health challenges were identified based on demographic categorization, such as age of respondent and region.

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

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

Comparison of luteolysis and timed artificial insemination pregnancy rates after administration of PGF2α in the muscle or the ischiorectal fossa in cattle.

Prostaglandin F2α (PGF2α) is commonly injected intramuscularly (IM) in female cattle in synchronization protocols. A novel site for administration of PGF2α that improves beef quality assurance is the ischiorectal fossa (IRF). The objective of this study was to determine whether administration of PGF2α in the IRF results in a similar physiological response to an intramuscular injection. Yearling angus-cross heifers (n = 112) were blocked by weight and randomly assigned within blocks to be injected with 5 mL PGF2α either IM in the neck or in the IRF. Blood samples taken at 0, 8, 16, 24, 36, and 48 h post-injection were analyzed for serum progesterone concentration using a radioimmunoassay. Progesterone concentration curves for each heifer were plotted to determine luteolysis. The median times to luteolysis for neck and IRF injections were 18.1 h and 20.0 h, respectively (p = 0.06). Angus cross commercial beef cows (n = 1471) at least 30 days post-partum were blocked by age and randomly assigned within blocks to be injected with 5 mL PGF2α either IM in the neck muscle or in IRF as part of a 7-Day CO-Synch + CIDR synchronization protocol. Pregnancy diagnosis was performed via ultrasound at 60 days post insemination. Results were analyzed with Proc Glimmix (SAS). Pregnancy rates for neck and IRF injections were 52.6% and 57.2%, respectively (p = 0.06). In summary, injection of PGF2α in the IRF for synchronization of estrus and luteolysis did not differ from IM injection. Utilizing the ischiorectal fossa as an injection site for PGF2α may serve as an alternative that more closely aligns with beef quality assurance.

Dairy cow handling facilities and the perception of Beef Quality Assurance on Colorado dairies.

A survey was conducted on Colorado dairies to assess attitudes and practices regarding Dairy Beef Quality Assurance (DBQA). The objectives were to (1) assess the need for a new handling facility that would allow all injections to be administered via DBQA standards; (2) establish if Colorado dairy producers are concerned with DBQA; and (3) assess differences in responses between dairy owners and herdsmen. Of the 95 dairies contacted, 20 (21%) agreed to participate, with a median herd size of 1,178. When asked to rank the following 7 traits--efficiency, animal safety, human safety, ease of animal handling, ease of operation, inject per Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) procedures, and cost--in order of priority when designing a new handling facility, human and animal safety were ranked highest in priority (first or second) by the majority of participants, with ease of animal handling and efficiency ranked next. Interestingly, the administration of injections per BQA standards was ranked sixth or seventh by most participants. Respondents estimated the average annual income from the sale of cull cows to be 4.6% of all dairy income, with 50% receiving at least one carcass discount or condemnation in the past 12 mo. Although almost all of the participating dairy farmers stated that the preferred injection site for medications was the neck region, a significant number admitted to using alternate injection sites. In contrast, no difference was found between responses regarding the preferred and actual location for intravenous injections. Although most participating producers are aware of BQA injection guidelines, they perceive efficiency as more important, which could result in injections being administered in locations not promoted by BQA. Dairy owners and herdsmen disagreed in whether or not workers had been injured in the animal handling area in the last 12 mo. Handling facilities that allow for an efficient and safe way to administer drugs according to BQA guidelines and educational opportunities that highlight the effect of improved DBQA on profitability could prove useful. Dairy producers play a key role in ensuring that dairy beef is safe and high quality, and just as they are committed to producing safe and nutritious milk for their customers, they should be committed to producing the best quality beef.