2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Survey of cow-calf producer perspectives on management strategies and industry challenges. Part 2. Marketing and selection decisions 1

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The welfare significance of the castration of cattle: a review.

          Castration is an ancient husbandry procedure used to produce docile cattle for draught work, to reduce unwanted breeding, and to modify carcass quality. All the physical methods used to castrate cattle have side-effects and cause pain. The plasma cortisol response to castration using Burdizzo clamps and, by inference, the acute pain experienced, is less than that caused by surgical, rubber-ring or latex-band castration. The cortisol response may be influenced by the age of the animal castrated, but this has not been well defined. Local anaesthesia virtually eliminates the cortisol response, and thus the acute pain, caused by rubber-ring or latex-band castration, but needs to be combined with a systemic analgesic such as the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug ketoprofen to eliminate the cortisol response to Burdizzo or surgical castration. When used alone, ketoprofen sometimes reduces the cortisol response to Burdizzo or surgical castration but may need to be accompanied by local anaesthesia to eliminate the pain-induced behaviour seen during the castration process itself. Thus, pharmacological methods are available to virtually eliminate the acute pain experienced by calves during the 12 h following castration. The use of these methods is an additional cost for farmers and may be limited by the availability of drugs for farmers to use and the scarcity of veterinarians in farm animal practice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Animal behavior and well-being symposium: Farm animal welfare assurance: science and application.

            Public and consumer pressure for assurances that farm animals are raised humanely has led to a range of private and public animal welfare standards, and for methods to assess compliance with these standards. The standards usually claim to be science based, but even though researchers have developed measures of animal welfare and have tested the effects of housing and management variables on welfare within controlled laboratory settings, there are challenges in extending this research to develop on-site animal welfare standards. The standards need to be validated against a definition of welfare that has broad support and which is amenable to scientific investigation. Ensuring that such standards acknowledge scientific uncertainty is also challenging, and balanced input from all scientific disciplines dealing with animal welfare is needed. Agencies providing animal welfare audit services need to integrate these scientific standards and legal requirements into successful programs that effectively measure and objectively report compliance. On-farm assessment of animal welfare requires a combination of animal-based measures to assess the actual state of welfare and resource-based measures to identify risk factors. We illustrate this by referring to a method of assessing welfare in broiler flocks. Compliance with animal welfare standards requires buy-in from all stakeholders, and this will be best achieved by a process of inclusion in the development of pragmatic assessment methods and the development of audit programs verifying the conditions and continuous improvement of farm animal welfare.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Assessment and management of pain associated with castration in cattle.

              Validated pain assessment tools are needed to support approval of analgesic compounds to alleviate pain associated with castration. Accelerometers, videography, heart rate variability, electroencephalography, thermography, and plasma neuropeptide measurement to assess behavioral, physiologic, and neuroendocrine changes associated with castration are discussed. Preemptive local and systemic analgesia are also reviewed. Previous studies found that preemptive administration of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) and local anesthesia significantly decreased peak serum cortisol concentration after castration. Local anesthesia alone tended to decrease peak cortisol concentrations more than NSAIDs, whereas NSAIDs alone tended to decrease the area under the cortisol-time curve more than local anesthesia alone.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Transl Anim Sci
                Transl Anim Sci
                tas
                Translational Animal Science
                Oxford University Press (US )
                2573-2102
                January 2019
                11 February 2019
                11 February 2019
                : 3
                : 1
                : 225-236
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
                [2 ]Penton, New York, NY
                [3 ]BEEF, Irving, TX
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: martinpork@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                txz010
                10.1093/tas/txz010
                7200406
                32704794
                abe16b78-fd3d-4223-bccc-0765a0aa7d1b
                © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 04 September 2018
                : 07 February 2019
                Page count
                Pages: 12
                Categories
                Animal Health and Well Being

                beef quality assurance,value-added marketing
                beef quality assurance, value-added marketing

                Comments

                Comment on this article