Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:55:23.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Facilities, breed and experience affect ease of sheep handling: the livestock transporter’s perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2015

C. L. Burnard ,
W. S. Pitchford ,
J. E. Hocking Edwards  and
S. J. Hazel
C. L. Burnard*
Affiliation:
Cooperative Research Centre for Sheep Industry Innovation, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia
W. S. Pitchford
Affiliation:
School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia
J. E. Hocking Edwards
Affiliation:
Cooperative Research Centre for Sheep Industry Innovation, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia South Australian Research Development Institute, Struan Research Centre, Naracoorte, SA 5271, Australia
S. J. Hazel
Affiliation:
School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

An understanding of the perceived importance of a variety of factors affecting the ease of handling of sheep and the interactions between these factors is valuable in improving profitability and welfare of the livestock. Many factors may contribute to animal behaviour during handling, and traditionally these factors have been assessed in isolation under experimental conditions. A human social component to this phenomenon also exists. The aim of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of the importance of a variety of factors affecting ease of handling, and the interactions between these from the perspective of the livestock transporter. Qualitative interviews were used to investigate the factors affecting sheep behaviour during handling. Interview transcripts underwent thematic analysis. Livestock transporters discussed the effects of attitudes and behaviours towards sheep, helpers, facilities, distractions, environment, dogs and a variety of sheep factors including breed, preparation, experience and sex on sheep behaviour during handling. Transporters demonstrated care and empathy and stated that patience and experience were key factors determining how a person might deal with difficult sheep. Livestock transporters strongly believed facilities (ramps and yards) had the greatest impact, followed by sheep experience (naivety of the sheep to handling and transport) and breed. Transporters also discussed the effects of distractions, time of day, weather, dogs, other people, sheep preparation, body condition and sheep sex on ease of handling. The concept of individual sheep temperament was indirectly expressed.

Keywords

ovinehusbandryqualitativeinterviewbehaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Supplement 8 , August 2015 , pp. 1379 - 1385
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alemseged, Y and Hacker, RB 2014. Introduction of Dorper sheep into Australian rangelands: implications for production and natural resource management. Rangeland Journal 36, 85–90.Google Scholar
Almeida, AM, Kilminster, T, Scanlon, T, Araujo, SS, Milton, J, Oldham, C and Greeff, JC 2013. Assessing carcass and meat characteristics of Damara, Dorper and Australian Merino lambs under restricted feeding. Tropical Animal Health and Production 45, 1305–1311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Australian Government 2012. Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Land Transport of Livestock. Report of the Standing Council on Primary Industries, Australian Government, Canberra, ACT, Australia.Google Scholar
Boissy, A, Bouix, J, Orgeur, P, Poindron, P, Bibé, B and Le Neindre, P 2005. Genetic analysis of emotional reactivity in sheep: effects of the genotypes of the lambs and of their dams. Genetics Selection Evolution 37, 381–401.Google Scholar
Boivin, X, Marcantognini, L, Boulesteix, P, Godet, J, Brule, A and Veissier, I 2007. Attitudes of farmers towards Limousin cattle and their handling. Animal Welfare 16, 147–151.Google Scholar
Cleaver, D and Ballantyne, J 2013. Teachers’ views of constructivitist theory: a qualitative study illuminating relationships between epistemological understanding and music teaching practice. International Journal of Music Education 32, 228–241.Google Scholar
Coleman, GJ, Rice, M and Hemsworth, PH 2012. Human-animal relationships at sheep and cattle abattoirs. Animal Welfare 21, 15–21.Google Scholar
Dodd, CL, Pitchford, WS, Edwards, JEH and Hazel, SJ 2012. Measures of behavioural reactivity and their relationships with production traits in sheep: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 140, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erhard, HW, Elston, DA and Davidson, GC 2006. Habituation and extinction in an approach–avoidance test: an example with sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 132–144.Google Scholar
Fordyce, G and Goddard, ME 1984. Maternal influence on the temperament of Bos indicus cross cows. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 15, 345–348.Google Scholar
Glaser, BG and Strauss, AL 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
Grandin, T 1990. Design of loading facilities and holding pens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28, 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, NG 2008. Animal welfare at markets and during transport and slaughter. Meat Science 80, 2–11.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Coleman, GJ and Hansen, C 1989. A study of the relationships between the attitudinal and behavioural profiles of stockpersons and the level of fear of humans and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23, 301–314.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL, Borg, S and Dowling, S 2002. The effects of cognitive behavioral intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80, 68–78.Google Scholar
Hutson, GD 1985. The influence of barley food rewards on sheep movement through a handling system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14, 263–273.Google Scholar
Kilgour, RJ and Szantar-Coddington, MR 1997. The arena test and cortisol response of sheep as indirect selection criteria for the improvement of lamb survival. Animal Reproduction Science 46, 97–108.Google Scholar
Kollinsky, L and Simonds, LM 2012. A qualitative exploration of the views and experiences of family court magistrates making decisions in care proceedings involving parents with learning disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities 41, 86–93.Google Scholar
Lansade, L, Bouissou, MF and Boivin, X 2007. Temperament in preweanling horses: development of reactions to humans and novelty, and startle responses. Developmental Psychobiology 49, 501–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Neindre, P, Poindron, P, Trillat, G and Orgeur, P 1993. Influence of breed on reactivity of sheep to humans. Genetics Selection Evolution 25, 447–458.Google Scholar
Markowitz, TM, Dally, MR, Gursky, K and Price, EO 1998. Early handling increases lamb affinity for humans. Animal Behaviour 55, 573–587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mounier, L, Colson, S, Roux, M, Dubroeucq, H, Boissy, A and Veissier, I 2008. Positive attitudes of farmers and pen-group conservation reduce adverse reactions of bulls during transfer for slaughter. Animal 2, 894–901.Google Scholar
Njisane, YZ and Muchenje, V 2013. Influence of municipal abattoir conditions and animal-related factors on avoidance-related behaviour, bleeding times at slaughter and the quality of lamb meat. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 26, 1496–1503.Google Scholar
Patton, MQ 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Paton, JS, Roberts, A, Bruce, GK and Marsden, J 2014. Patients’ experience of therapeutic footwear whilst living at risk of neuropathic diabetic foot ulceration: an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 7, 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romeyer, A and Bouissou, MF 1992. Assessment of fear reactions in domestic sheep, and influence of breed and rearing conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34, 93–119.Google Scholar
Vandenheede, M and Bouissou, MF 1993. Sex-differences in fear reactions in sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37, 39–55.Google Scholar
Viérin, M and Bouissou, MF 2003. Responses of weaned lambs to fear-eliciting situations: origin of individual differences. Developmental Psychobiology 42, 131–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weeks, CA 2008. A review of welfare in cattle, sheep and pig lairages, with emphasis on stocking rates, ventilation and noise. Animal Welfare 17, 275–284.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Burnard supplementary material

Burnard supplementary material 1

Download Burnard supplementary material(File)
File 25.3 KB