Steady Progress: Cattle handling in America’s feedlots continues to improve, a Colorado State University survey shows.

by Ruth Woiwode and Temple Grandin
Beef Magazine, September 2014

Updated May 2023 (With new survey information)

A number of recent undercover videos chronicling apparent abuse by workers of animals on diaries and pig farms have received widespread public play. Such sensational videos are very instrumental in forming public perceptions regarding the treatment and handling of livestock in the U.S.

Much of the public isn’t aware that in the beef industry, however, many feedlots have greatly improved their handling of animals during processing in the squeeze chute. In fact, a recent Colorado State University (CSU) survey shows that the majority of feedlots are adhering to the industry’s Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) guidelines when handling cattle in squeeze chutes. BQA is a national program that provides guidelines for beef cattle production.

The survey was conducted in 28 feedlots in Kansas, Colorado, and Nebraska. The size of the yards ranged from one-time capacities of 5,000 head to more than 100,000 head. At each feedlot, around 100 head of cattle were observed during routine vaccinating, implanting, and ear-tagging.

Prod use diminished

The CSU researchers found that use of electric prods has greatly diminished. Temple Grandin, a CSU professor of animal science, says she can remember a few decades ago when an electric prod was the primary driving tool of cattle in feedyards and was used on almost all the cattle. The latest research found that the average percentage of cattle moved with an electric prod was just 5.5%, which is well under the BQA threshold of 10%. The percentage of cattle moved with an electric prod (in any given cattle handling event) ranged 0% to 45%. Only two yards had an overall electric prod score over 10%.

Per BQA guidelines, vocalization (moos and bellows) was scored when the animal was captured in the squeeze chute before procedures, such as ear—tagging, were initiated. Each animal was scored as either silent or vocalizing. The average percentage of vocalizing cattle was 1.4%, which is well below the BQA limit of 5%. The scores ranged from 0% to 5.1%.

The percentage of cattle falling (the body touches the ground) after exiting the squeeze chute was within the BQA limit of 2% or less in all the yards. The average falling score was 0.8%. At many feedyards, the installation of woven rubber mats on the floor in front of the squeeze chute has helped to reduce falls by providing better traction for the cattle as,they exit the chute.

Quieter, calmer handling practices that reduce cattle agitation and excitement are another factor that may have reduced falls. The percentage of cattle that stumbled (a knee contacting the ground after exiting) was also within the BQA guideline of 10% in 86% of the yards surveyed. The average was 6.7%, with a range of 0% to 28%.

The BQA guidelines combine the measurements of running and jumping during exiting from the squeeze chute. The best feedyards had 0% runs and jumps. The average was 12.8%, and the worst yard was 16%. When running was tabulated alone, the average was 30.7% of the cattle, with a range of 2% to 75%. The average is slightly over a target exit running score of 25%. View these criteria at www.grandin.com.

A survey of cattle handling in 28 feedlots in Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado. 100 cattle scored in each feedlot.

Electric Prod Use Average Percentage of Cattle Range Best and Worst Score
Falling while exiting the squeeze chute 0.5% 0% to 2%
Stumble during exiting, one or two knees on the ground 6.7% 0% to 28%
Vocalization in the squeeze chute prior to procedure 1.3% 0% to 6%
Miscaught by the headgate 2.2% 0% to 16%
Running during exiting 30.7% 2% to 75%

Areas that need improvement

While this survey found a great deal of positive results to report, it’s also critical to report any negative findings. Cattle that are miscaught in the headgate are still a problem area. The BQA guideline specifies that all cattle that are miscaught must be readjusted so that the animal is in the correct position for processing tasks. A missed catch was scored if the headgate was closed across the animal’s jaw or leg. Unfortunately 60% of the miscaught cattle monitored in the survey were not readjusted in the chute. At this time, the BQA guideline provides no threshold for the average percentage of missed catches. CSU research found the 28 surveyed feedyards averaged miscatches on 2.2% of cattle processed, with a range of 0% to 16%; 2% may be a good figure for BQA to adopt as a threshold for missed catches. It is important to reduce miscatches because animals are more likely to get injured when they are miscaught.

Unfortunately there was one feedlot where a member of the contract processing crew severely abused cattle by yanking out (rather than cutting out) ear tags, which resulted in injured ears. If this behavior had been captured with a cellphone cam-era and put on YouTube, it would have been a black eye for the whole industry.

The other 96% of the yards had good employee behavior in the processing chute. This survey did not l include observations of truck loading or unloading.

Researchers' discussions with feedlot managers indicated an increased awareness of best handling practices, such as moving smaller groups of cattle and not overloading the crowd pen. Yelling at cattle has also been reduced, and it was witnessed at only one yard. All of the industry’s emphasis on low—stress handling apparently has begun to make real improvements.

Careful, low-stress handling does require more effort. To move small groups of cattle requires more walking, which can tempt some fatigued workers to move larger groups of cattle. Maintaining high standards during cattle handling requires managers who are committed to good handling, and an awareness of the importance of avoiding fatigue in the employees handling cattle.

General tips for good handling

Update May 2023 on Cattle Handling Surveys

Since the publication of this survey, there have been four additional surveys on cattle handling on feedlots and ranches. Overall, the feedlot feedlot personell have performed better than the cow calf ranchers. A possible reason for this is that educational programs such as BQACBEQ Quality Assurance have been able to reach most feedlots. In the fall of 2022, I visited several small ranches in the more remote areas of the SE US Some of their vendors were not aware of the training information that was available through NCBA (National Cattlemen's Beef Association). Woiwode et al (2016) and Barnhardt et al (2016) showed very similar good scores for handling cattle in feedlots. There two surveys were conducted independently. There is still a need to continually train people on basic principles of cattle handling. Two surveyes conducted on cow calf ranches indicated that electric prods were frequently used (Calaba et al, 2022, Simon et al, 2016)d. Calaba et at (2022) surveyed 76 ranches and 66% were in compliance with BQA on electric prod use. Unfortunately 17% used electric prods on over 50% of the cattle. A Texas survey in feedlots showed that 30% of stock people made too much noise and 46% put too many cattle in the crowd pend (Yost et al, 2020). Moving small groups of animalss into the crowd pen will facilitate movement into the single file race. See other parts of Grandin.com for educational materials on cattle handling.

References

Borhardt, T.K. et al (2016). Implementation of industry oriented assessment of Kansass Feeding Operations. Bovine Practioneers.. 48:81-87

Calaba, E. et al (2022). Benchmarking animal handling outcomes on cow calf operations and identifying associated factors. Translational Animal Science. 6(3); txac 106.

Simon, G.E. et al (2016). Assessing cow calf welfare: Part 1: Benchmarking beef cow health and behavior, handling, and management practices. Journal of Animal Science. 94:3476-2487.

Yost, J.K. et al (2020). The stockman's score card: Quantitative evaluation of beef cattle stockmanship. Translational Animal Sciences. 4; txaq 175.

Woiwode, R. et al (2016). Compliance of large feedyards on the Northern Plains with beef quality assurance feedyard assessments. Professional Animal Science. 32:750-757.

Click here to return to the Homepage for more information on animal behavior, welfare, and care.