Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-7jgsp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T01:17:39.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the effect of castration on the ease of movement and handling of young cattle in yards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. N. Hinch  and
J. J. Lynch
G. N. Hinch
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia
J. J. Lynch
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Animal Production, Pastoral Research Laboratory, Private Mail Bag, Armidale, NSW, 2350, Australia
Get access

Extract

The ease with which cattle can be handled during routine husbandry operations is a major concern to producers. Ease of handling is difficult to define but includes the case with which cattle can be moved through yards, through a race or held in a crush or scales. Few studies have attempted to measure ‘ease of handling’ of animals. ‘Temperament scores’ of cattle of various breeds, sexes and ages based on the scoring system originally described by Tulloh (1961) were recorded by Hearnshaw, Barlow and Want (1979). These scores were highly repeatable between scorers and within animals although some decline in scores occurred with repeated measurements. Hearnshaw et al. (1979) suggested that the scores were a measurement of ease of handling rather than temperament.

Information

Type
Notes
Information
Animal Production , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , October 1987 , pp. 317 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1987

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Anonymous. 1973. Report on Bull Beef. UK Advisory Council tor Agriculture and Horticulture in England and Wales.Google Scholar
Ewbank, R. 1961. The behaviour of cattle in crushes. Veterinary Record 73: 853–856.Google Scholar
Grandin, T. 1980. Observations of cattle behaviour applied to the design of cattle handling facilities. Applied Animal Ethology 6: 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hearnshaw, H., Barlow, R. and Want, G. 1979. Development of a temperament or handling difficulty score for cattle. Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the Australian Association of Animal Breeding and Genetics, University of New England, pp. 164–166.Google Scholar
Hinch, G. N., Lynch, J. J. and Thwaites, C. J. 1982/1983. Patterns and frequency of social interactions in young grazing bulls and steers. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 15–30.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. H. 1978. Effects of hemicastration on testicular function in adult and young puberal bulls. Theriogenology 10: 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mickan, F. J., Thomas, G. W. and Spiker, S. A. 1976. A comparison between Friesian bulls and steers on pasture for lean meat production. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 16: 297–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipo, E. 1972. Why bulls? British Farmer and Stockbreeder 1: 43–45.Google Scholar
Price, M. A. and Yeates, N. T. M. 1971. Infertile bulls versus steers. 1. The influence of level of nutrition on relative growth rate. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 77: 307–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulloh, N. M. 1961. Behaviour of cattle in yards. II. A study of temperament. Animal Behaviour 9: 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar