Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:46:16.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stress at slaughter in cattle: role of reactivity profile and environmental factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

EMC Terlouw ,
C Bourguet  and
V Deiss
EMC Terlouw*
Affiliation:
Herbivore Research Unit, INRA, 63122 St-Genès Champanelle, France
C Bourguet
Affiliation:
Herbivore Research Unit, INRA, 63122 St-Genès Champanelle, France
V Deiss
Affiliation:
Herbivore Research Unit, INRA, 63122 St-Genès Champanelle, France
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

During slaughter, cattle may be exposed to many potentially stress-inducing factors, of emotional and physical nature. A series of studies aimed to identify factors that may contribute to slaughter stress. During reactivity tests testing emotional stressors, Blond d’Aquitaine bulls were more reactive than Angus and Limousin bulls. However, no breed differences were found for stress indicators at slaughter. Indicators of post mortem (PM) muscle metabolism were correlated with stress reactions at slaughter, and with behavioural reactions and heart rates during the reactivity tests, including a sudden event and handling. Similarly, in Normand cull cows, stronger behavioural and physiological reactions during the slaughter procedure were associated with faster PM muscle metabolism. Reactions during the reactivity tests were also correlated with stress indicators at slaughter. A Principal Component Analysis indicated that the first and second axes were correlated with reactions to non-familiarity and to social isolation, respectively. Both axes were correlated with stress indicators at slaughter, suggesting that these two aspects contribute significantly to the emotional stress at slaughter. These experiments indicate that stress reactivity at slaughter may be predicted from behavioural and emotional stress reactions during reactivity tests. A third experiment found that compared with normally fed cows, 30-h food-deprived cows showed stronger startle and fear responses in response to a sudden event. Within a group subjected to a physical-effort treatment, compared to normally fed heifers, food-deprived heifers were more reactive to human exposure. This shows that the reactions to a given stressor may increase due to the presence of other stressors. Thus, in cattle, novelty, social disturbances and sudden events may contribute to slaughter stress and the simultaneous presence of several stressors during the slaughter period may exacerbate stress reactions.

Keywords

animal welfarecattleemotional stressmeat qualityphysiologyslaughter
Type
Papers
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue S2: Proceedings of the HSA Centenary International Symposium ‘Recent Advances in the Welfare of Livestock at Slaughter’ Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK, 2011 , June 2012 , pp. 43 - 49
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bendall, JR 1973 Post-mortem Changes in Muscle. Academic Press: MO, USAGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A 1995 Fear and fearfulness in animals. The Quarterly Review of Biology 70: 165–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/418981CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boissy, A and Bouissou, MF 1995 Assessment of individual differences in behavioural reactions of heifers exposed to various fear-eliciting situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 17–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)00633-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourguet, C, Deiss, V, Gobert, M, Durand, D, Boissy, A and Terlouw, EMC 2010 Characterising the emotional reactivity of cows to understand and predict their stress reactions to the slaughter procedure. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 125: 9–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourguet, C, Deiss, V, Boissy, A, Andanson, S and Terlouw, EMC 2011a Effects of food deprivation on behavioral reactivity and physiological status in Holstein cattle. Journal of Animal Science 89: 3272–3285. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3139CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourguet, C, Deiss, V, Tannugi Cohen, C and Terlouw, EMC 2011b Behavioural and physiological reactions of cattle in a commercial abattoir. Relationships with organisational aspects of the abattoir and animal characteristics. Meat Science 88: 158–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.12.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourguet, C, Deiss, V, Boissy, A and Terlouw, EMC 2012 Young Blond d’Aquitaine, Angus and Limousin bulls differ in emotional reactivity during tests: relationships with animal traits, stress reactions at slaughter and post-mortem muscle metabolism, in prepGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 1987 Biology of Stress in Farm Animals: An Integrative Approach pp 101–110. Springer: New York, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3339-2_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockram, MS, Kent, JE, Jackson, RE, Goddard, PJ, Doherty, OM, McGilp, IM, Fox, A, Studdert-Kennedy, TC, McConnell, TI and O’Riordan, T 1997 Effect of lairage during 24 h of transport on the behavioural and physiological responses of sheep. Animal Science 65: 391–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damasio, A 2003 Looking for Spinoza. Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain. Harcourt: CA, USAGoogle Scholar
Dantzer, R 2002 Can farm animal welfare be understood without taking into account the issues of emotion and cognition? Journal of Animal Science 80: E1–E9Google Scholar
Danziger, N 2006 Bases neurologiques de l'affect douloureux. Revue Neurologique 162: 395–399. [Title translation: Neurological basis of the emotional dimension of pain]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1980 Animal Suffering. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desiré, L, Boissy, A and Veissier, I 2002 Emotions in farm animals: a new approach to animal welfare in applied ethology. Behavioural Processes 60: 165–180Google ScholarPubMed
D’Souza, DN, Warner, RD, Dunshea, FR and Leury, BJ 1998 Effect of on-farm and pre-slaughter handing of pigs on meat quality. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 49: 1022–1025Google Scholar
Duncan, IJH 1996 Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agriculture Scandinavia, Section A. Animal Science 27: 29–35Google Scholar
Ferguson, DM and Warner, RD 2008 Have we underestimated the impact of pre-slaughter stress on meat quality in ruminants? Meat Science 80: 12–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.05.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D, Ritchie, JSD and Fraser, AF 1975 The term ‘stress’ in a veterinary context. British Veterinary Journal 131: 653–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1999 Safe handling of large animals. Occupational Medicine 14: 195–212Google ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 2006 Progress and challenges in animal handling and slaughter in the US: sentience in animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100: 129–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiveldinger, L, Veissier, I and Boissy, A 2007 Emotional experience in sheep: Predictability of a sudden event lowers subsequent emotional responses. Physiology and Behavior 92: 675–683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.05.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gruber, SL, Tatum, JD, Engle, TE, Chapman, PL, Belk, KE and Smith, GC 2010 Relationships of behavioral and physiological symptoms of preslaughter stress to beef longissimus muscle tenderness. Journal of Animal Science 88: 1148–1159. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-2183CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horswill, CA, Hickner, RC, Scott, JR, Costill, DL and Gould, D 1990 Weight loss, dietary carbohydrate modifications, and high intensity, physical performance. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 22: 470–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/00005768-199008000-00009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordan, WP and Leaton, RN 1982 Effects of mesencephalic reticular formation lesions on habituation of startle and lick suppression responses in the rat. Journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology 96: 170–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0077880CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knowles, TG, Brown, SN, Edwards, JE, Phillips, AJ and Warriss, PD 1999 Effect on young calves of a one-hour feeding stop during a 19-hour road journey. The Veterinary Record 144: 687–692. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.144.25.687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, JW 1974 Specificity in the organization of neuroendocrine response profiles. In: Seemans, P and Brown, G (eds) Frontiers in Neurology and Neuroscience Research pp 68–80. University of Toronto: Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Panksepp, J, Moskal, JR, Panksepp, JB and Kroes, RA 2002 Comparative approaches in evolutionary psychology: molecular neuroscience meets the mind. Neuroendocrinology Letters Dec 23, S4: 105–115Google Scholar
Rosenvold, K and Andersen, HJ 2003 Factors of significance for pork quality: a review. Meat Science 64: 219–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00186-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terlouw, C 2005 Stress reactions at slaughter and meat quality in pigs: genetic background and prior experience: a brief review of recent findings: product quality and livestock systems. Livestock Production Science 94: 125–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livprod-sci.2004.11.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Arnould, C, Auperin, B, Berri, C, Le Bihan-Duval, E, Deiss, V, Lefèvre, F, Lensink, BJ and Mounier, L 2008 Pre-slaughter conditions, animal stress and welfare: current status and possible future research. Animal 2: 1501–1517CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terlouw, EMC and Rybarczyk, P 2008 Explaining and predicting differences in meat quality through stress reactions at slaughter: the case of Large White and Duroc pigs. Meat Science 79: 795–805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.11.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veissier, I and Boissy, A 2007 Stress and welfare: two complementary concepts that are intrinsically related to the animal's point of view. Physiology and Behavior 92: 429–433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.11.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warriss, PD, Kestin, SC, Brown, SN and Wilkins, LJ 1984 The time required for recovery from mixing stress in young bulls and the prevention of dark cutting beef. Meat Science 10: 53–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(84)90031-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed