Abstract
A survey was administered to Texas cattle feedyard employees (n =111) from 31 different operations measuring stockperson perception, job satisfaction and socioeconomic status using Likert statements and multiple-choice questions. Differences among employment roles (manager, pen rider, processor (those who vaccinate and implant incoming calves), doctor (non-veterinarians)) were evaluated using a Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a Multiple Comparison procedure. Managers strongly agreed with the statement “beef cattle are not dirty” more than doctors (P = 0.03) and that “cattle behavior is affected by the way we treat them” than pen riders (P = 0.002) or processors (P = 0.01). Managers were less likely than doctors, pen riders and processors to believe they have too many cattle to look after (P = 0.05, P = 0.006 and P = 0.01, respectively). Pen riders reported less confidence in performing euthanasia than doctors (P = 0.02) and managers (P = 0.02) and, along with processors, agreed that cattle were not always euthanized in a timely manner (P = 0.02 and P = 0.02, respectively). While all roles viewed Holstein cattle unfavorably (P < 0.001), processors viewed them more positively than pen riders (P = 0.05) and managers (P = 0.001). Socioeconomic results showed that Texas feedyards have a dedicated, passionate work force, with 43% of participants having worked in the industry for 9+ years and 49% of participants working at cattle feedyards because they enjoy working with animals. Unfortunately, it was evident that stock people are underpaid (57% of participants making between $10-15/hr) and overworked (76% of participants working 50+ hrs/week). Survey responses identified critical role-dependent knowledge gaps and biases. A disconnect was observed among compensation, workload and the duration of time stock people spend interacting with cattle. Increasing industry investment in feedyard employees and providing breed-specific and employee role-specific education may promote an encouraging workplace that ensures feedlot cattle experience good welfare.
Highlights
Awareness by livestock producers and consumers regarding the importance of the human-animal interaction (HAI) to livestock welfare is increasing as an overwhelming body of research suggests that stockperson behavior has the ability to directly impact animal behavior and health (Hemsworth and Coleman, 2011)
Managers more strongly agreed that “beef cattle behavior is affected by the way we treat them” than pen riders (P = 0.002) and processors (P = 0.01)
Processors tolerated working with dairy cattle the most compared to managers (P = 0.006) and pen riders (P = 0.005)
Summary
Awareness by livestock producers and consumers regarding the importance of the human-animal interaction (HAI) to livestock welfare is increasing as an overwhelming body of research suggests that stockperson behavior has the ability to directly impact animal behavior and health (Hemsworth and Coleman, 2011). Modern modes of animal agriculture demand that stock people interact frequently with animals to provide daily care and maintenance. As regular interactions with humans are a critical component of dairy and swine production, the dairy and swine industries have quantified how stockperson personality, attitude, perceptions and behavior directly affects the productivity, growth and welfare of livestock (Hemsworth et al, 1993). The impact of the HAI has not been objectively evaluated in the feeder cattle industry. Tucker et al, (2015) summarizes that much of the Attribution (CC-BY) 3.0 license. Ridge et al / American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences 2019, 14 (2): 139.150
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
