Rational management raises the Guzerat cattle welfare and improves the efficiency of vaccination work
Marcos Chiquitelli Neto, Cristiane Gonçalves Titto, José Nicolau Próspero Puoli Filho, Ana Luisa Silva Longo, Thays Mayra da Cunha Leme-dos-Santos, Evaldo Antonio Lencioni Titto, Leandro Zuccherato Camerro, Alfredo Manuel Franco Pereira
The experiment was done in the Teaching, Research and Extension Farm (FEPE - UNESP/Ilha Solteira). One hundred and twenty Guzerat cattle of different ages were used in the study: 40 mature cows, 40 yearling steers and 40 calves. Twenty animals of each category were vaccinated by rational management and the other 20 by conventional method. For calves, when they were submitted to rational management during the vaccination process, the management efficiency indicators showed lower averages, with lower time of work execution (P <0.001), repetitive introduction of the needle and bleeding at the injection site (P <0.05); as well as on the behaviors like reacting to the introduction of needle (P <0.01), body movement (P <0.001), jump up on another animal and attempting to or/jumping out of chute (P <0.05). In the category of mature cows, the rational management also resulted in lower values of vaccine losses (P <0.05), bleeding at the injection site, time of work execution and application of the vaccine in the wrong location (P <0.001), as well as some behaviors like reacting to the introduction of needle (P <0.01) and body movement (P <0.001). Similarly, the results obtained for yearling steers also showed significant differences between the two types of management used, with lowest average in the rational management on the indicators such as time of work execution and application of the vaccine in the wrong location (P <0.001), and behaviors such as body movement (P<0.01) and attempting to escape/jumping out of the chute (P <0.05). In this context, it is noted that the conventional management of vaccination possibly caused a sense of threat in animals, emphasizing fear and escape reactions, making the routine management more difficult, causing loss material and quality loss in the final product (beef), and increase the risk of accidents due to more aggressive behaviour toward the operator.
Breen KM, Billings HJ, Wagenmaker ER, Wessinger EW, Karsch FJ (2005) Endocrine basis for disruptive effect of cortisol on preovulatory events. Endocrinology 146:2107-2115.
Etim NN, Offiong EEA, Udo MD, Williams ME, Evans EI (2013) Physiological Relationship between Stress and Reproductive Efficiency. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America 4:600-604.
Grandin T (2008) Human e livestock handling. 1º.Storey Pub., Massachusetts.
Lanier JL, Grandin T, Green R, Avery D, Mcgee K (2001) A note on hair whorl position and cattle temperament in the auction ring. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73:93-101.
Lensink BJ, Veissier I, Florand L (2000) The farmer’s influence on calves’behaviour, health and production of a veal unit. Animal Science 72:105-116.
Martin P, Batenson P (1993) Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rezende-Lago NCM, D’Amato CC, Marchi PGF (2011) Perdas econômicas por abcessos e hematomas em carcaças de bovinos. Revista Eletrônica Univar 2:174-177.
Pajor EA, Rushen J, De Passiélle AM (2000) Aversion learning techniques to evaluate dairy cattle handling practices. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69:89-102.
Pinheiro AA, Brito IF (2009) Bem-estar e Produção Animal. http://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/bitstream/doc/748310/1/doc93.pdf. Acessado em: 14 fevereiro de 2015.
SAS (2002) User’s guide: statistics. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.
Voisinet BD, Grandin T, O'Connor SF, Tatum JD, Deesing MJ (1997) Bos indicus-cross feedlot cattle with excitable temperaments have tougher meat and a higher incidence of borderline dark cutters. Meat Science 46:367-377.