RESEARCH BULLETIN 1048 SEPTEMBER,1982
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
A. MAX LENNON, DIRECTOR
Effects of Transportation,
Handling and Environment on
Slaughter Cattle.
I. Weight Loss and Carcass Yield
J. M. Asplund, H. F. Mayes, M. E. Anderson,
G. L. Hahn, H. D. Hedrick, and T. G. Ebinger
University of Missouri, Columbia 6.5211
:1:.
COLUMBIA, MISSOURI
Contents
Materials and Methods
Trial 1 ..................... .... ..... .......................... ........ .. ............ .... ................. 1
Trial 2 ..................................... ..... ........... .... ...... .. .............. ..... ........ ....... 2
Trial 3 ..... ..... .. ..... ......... ..... .... ........ ............ .... ... .......... ........ ... .. ............... 3
Results and Discussion
Trial 1 ........ ..... .... .. ........... ...... ... ..... .... .... .... .......... ....... ..... ... ......... ......... 3
Trial 2 ............ ....... .. .. .... ... .. .... ....... ........... ....... ... ............... ...... .............. 4
Trial 3 . .. ................ ........ .......................... ........... ....... ....... ....... .... .... ...... 9
Tables and Figures
Table 1. Weight Losses of Cattle in Trial 1. ......... .. ........ .... .. ... ..4
Table 2. Weight Losses by Experiment (Trial 2). .. .... .. .. .......... 5
Figure 1. Weight Loss by Treatment in Trial 2 ... ........ ............ 6
The dappled Areas represent the water
intake following transportation.
Figure 2. Weight loss by season in Trial 2. .. ........ .................... 8
Average overall treatments.
Table 3. Weight Loss (Trial 3) . ..................... .. .... ... ........................ 9
References Inside Back Cover
Effects of Transportation,
Handling and Environment on
Slaughter Cattle.
I. Weight Loss and Carcass Yield 1
J. M. Asplund2
, H. F. Mayes3 , M. E. Anderson3,
G. L. Hahn5
, H. D. Hedrick4
, and T. G. Ebinger
University of Missouri, Columbia 65211
Weight loss or shrink in slaughter-weight cattle has long been
recognized as an economic fact. However, there have been few systematic
studies of the phenomenon. Data on weight loss during different transportation
times and conditions have been reported (Abbenhaus and Penney,
1951; Harston, 1959). The influences of withdrawal of feed and water in
connection with transportation were examined by Henning and Thomas
(1962) and Talkes and Tilley (1975).
It is recognized that both fasting and transportation stress are usually
imposed upon cattle being sent to market. The effects of these influences
need to be studied separately. Self and Gay (1972) examined the location of
shrink in the parts of the animal body and found that all parts lost weight
during transportation. They also observed that weight recovery was much
slower than weight loss.
This study was initiated to observe in detail the shrink in live
slaughter-weight steers to determine the influence of time in transportation,
withdrawal of feed and water, and climatic differences on the weight
losses.
Materials and Methods
Trial 1. Twenty-four slaughter steers were purchased at a local
feedlot. They were penned together without regrouping and had access to
feed and water in feedlot conditions for three days. They were then
weighed, blood sampled, loaded onto trucks and taken 83 km (52 miles) to
lPartially supported by USDA-SEA Grant 801-15-41.
2Dept. of Anim. Sci.
3USDA-SEA Agr. Eng.
4Dept. of Food Sci and Nutr.
5Roman L. Hruska, Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE
2 MISSOURI AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
the University of Missouri Beef Farm near Columbia, Missouri, where
they were again weighed.
One-half of the animals were then taken on a trip of 1,419 km (882
miles) and the remaining animals were divided into four groups of three
steers each. One group was slaughtered immediately. Another group was
held for two days with access to feed and water in outside pens adjacent to
the abattoir, then slaughtered. Two groups were held for seven days with
access to feed and water in environmentally-controlled chambers at the
Missouri Climatic Laboratory; one group at 20°C (64°F) and 75 percent
relative humidity and the other at 32°C (85°F) and 50 percent relative
humidity. Both groups were slaughtered following the holding period.
The lot of cattle that was transported the longer distance, upon return,
was subdivided into the same groups as described above.
Trial2. This trial involved three experiments of essentially the same
design, but carried out under widely different environmental conditions.
Experiment 1 was conducted in October, 1978, Experiment 2 in February,
1979 and Experiment 3 in August, 1979. Environmental conditions at
these times were considered thermoneutral, stressfully cold and stressfully
hot, respectively. In each experiment, 42 head of slaughter steers
were selected and held for three days in feedlot conditions (as in Trial 1).
They were weighed, blood sampled and transported by truck to the
University Beef Farm, a trip of83 km (52 miles). This facility was 10 km (6
miles) from the abattoir. Here they were again weighed and subdivided
into seven groups as follows:
SHIS-Short haul (83 km), immediate slaughter.
SH2DH-Short haul, two day hold. The animals were held two days
without feed and water, then slaughtered.
IHIS-Intermediate haul, immediate slaughter. The animals were
transported an additional 600 km (373 miles), held overnight
and slaughtered immediately the following morning.
IH2DH-Intermediate haul, two day hold. The animals were transported
as above, but allowed one drink at unloading and held for
two more days without feed and water, then slaughtered.
IH7DH-Intermediate haul, seven day hold. The animals were
transported as above, but held for seven days with access to feed
and water, then slaughtered.
LHIS-Long haul, immediate slaughter. The animals were transported
1265 km (788 miles) and then taken directly to slaughter.
LH2DH-Long haul, two day hold. These animals were hauled as
above, allowed one drink upon unloading and held for two days
without feed and water, then slaughtered.
RESEARCH BULLETIN 1048 3
The intermediate-haul groups returned to the abattoir in the evening
of the day they were obtained from the feedlot and held overnight before
slaughter. The long-haul groups returned the following morning, so both
groups were slaughtered at the same time. Hence, the holding time for
both groups was identical and they differed only in the proportion of that
time that was spent in transportation.
Trial 3. Thirty-six head of steers were purchased commercially and
placed on feed at the University Beef Farm. They received a standard
finishing ration for six weeks. During that time, 30 of the steers were
weighed individually twice a week to condition them to sorting and
weighing operations. One group of six was not handled during this period.
Six groups of six animals each were treated as follows:
(a) Control I. Conditioned animals taken directly to slaughter at the
beginning of the experiment.
(b) Fasted. Conditioned animals held off feed and water for 22 hours, then
taken directly to slaughter.
(c) Control II. Conditioned animals taken directly to slaughter at the same
time as groups fasted and fasted-hauled.
(d) Fasted-Hauled. Conditioned animals held 17 hours without feed and
water, hauled 80 km (50 miles) and taken directly to slaughter.
(e) Hauled. Conditioned cattle, transported 80 km (50 miles) directly from
the feedlot to slaughter.
(f) NPC. Non-conditioned animals taken directly from their pens to
slaughter.
In all trials, transportation conditions were as close as possible to
those normally used in industry. When compartmentalized trailers were
used, the animals were allotted to compartments to avoid possible
positional biases for treatment groups. All animals were individually
weighed at each loading point and immediately before slaughter. At
slaughter, hot carcass weights were determined and yield was calculated
on the basis of feedlot weight.
Results and Discussion
Trial 1. Cattle transported 83 km direct to slaughter lost 10.9 kg
(24Ibs.), or 2.3% of body weight (table 1). When they were held for two days
in an open lot with feed and water, they lost an additional 6.5 kg (14Ibs.)
However, those held in the closer confinement of the environmental
chambers for seven days lost an additional 20 kg (44Ibs.). Those held under
high environmental temperatures lost no more than those held under
thermo neutral conditions.
The steers that were transported 1,419 km directly to slaughter lost
32.4 kg (71lbs.), or 6.6% of their body weight. Animals held for two days in
open pens with access to feed and water regained almost nine kg of the lost
4 MISSOURI AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
TABLE 1. WEIGHT LOSSES OF CATTLE IN TRIAL 1a
Shrink from Carcass
feedlot to yield based
Feedlot abattoir on feedlot
Treatment wt, kg kg % wt, %
Short Haul
Direct to slaughter 485.9 10.9 2.3 64.1
Held 2 days, open pen 459.5 17.4 3.7 63.5
Held 7 days, thermoneutral 472.8 33.9 7.2 62.1
Held 7 days, hot environment 474.0 26.0 5.6 62.1
Long Haul
Direct to slaughter 489.1 32.4 6.6 61.2
Held 2 days, open pen 464.6 23.5 5.0 61.4
Held 7 days, thermoneutral 472.6 26.5 5.6 62.0
Held 7 days, hot environment 483.1 30.0 6.2 61.8
aStatistical analysis not performed.
weight, but those held for seven days in the environmental chambers did
not signficantly regain weight. They did not, however, lose more weight as
was observed in the short-haul group. Again, there was no difference in
weight loss between cattle held at the high us thermoneutral environmental
temperatures.
It could not be determined whether the additional weight losses in
cattle transported for the longer distance resulted from the handling and
confinement of transportation or the withholding offeed and water for 24
hours.
Based on feedlot weights, carcass yields were lower for the short-haul
cattle held in environmental chambers and for all cattle in the long-haul
group than those for cattle slaughtered immediately after the short haul.
Because of small subset numbers, the data were not tested statistically.
Tria12. Weight losses of as much as 45 kg (100 lbs.) occurred during
the course of these experiments. However, up to 50% of the maximum
shrink occurred during the first 50 km of transportation and the first four
to five hours of holding (table 2).
In each distance group, animals that were held lost more weight than
those s'ent directly to slaughter. This difference was greatest for the
short-haul group. However, the intermediate and long-haul groups had
access to water when they were unloaded. When the shrink data were
corrected for water intake, the influence of holding animals for two days
was similar, regardless of distance of transport (figure 1). The magnitude
of shrink was also greatly increased when water consumption was
TABLE 2. WEIGHT LOSSES BY EXPERIMENT (TRIAL 2)
Initial wt, (kg) Wt loss (kg) Wt loss (%) Carcass Yield (%)
Group Oct. Feb. Aug. Mean Oct. Feb. Aug. Mean Oct. Feb. Aug. Mean Oct. Feb. Aug. Mean
sms 503.4 519.5 509.5 511.8 23.2b 23.7"b 3.2" 16.7b 4.61b 4.52"b 0.63" 3.25" 59.7"b 61.8" 61.1b 60.8b
SH2DH 490.7 503.2 505.1 500.7 45.9d 28.0"b 45.9d 40.0d 9.35d 5.54"b 9.06d 7.98" 55.7" 60.6"b 57.1d 57.8d
IHIS 483.8 496.8 512.5 498.7 37.3" 25.8"b 34.9" 32.7"d 7.70" 5.20"b 6.81" 6.57bc 57.7b 60.0b 58.0d 58.7d
IH2DH 480.5 494.7 495.6 491.3 45.0"d 30.2b 42.1"d 39.2d 9.34d 6.09b 8.52d 7.98" 57.1b 59.3b 58.1d 58.3d
IH7DH 487.4 496.5 483.6 490.2 9.3" 17.9" 0.2" 9.2" 1.96" 3.65" 0.05" 2.08" 61.9" 61.2" 62.9" 62.1"
LmS 496.7 480.9 499.8 493.5 38.200 20.9"b 34.8" 31.4" 7.69" 4.26"b 6.97" 6.31b 57.6b 60.3"b 58.2d 58.7d
LH2DH 510.4 514.7 505.6 511.5 44.800 31.3b 25.0b 34.0"d 8.8100 6.05b 4.94b 6.60b" 58.1b 59.9b 60.9" 59.7"
•. b.".dMeans in the same column with the same superscript do not differ (P> 0.05).
6 MISSOURI AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
75 -
60
~ 45-
z
0:
I en
~ 30 -
15 -
-
-
I
CJ) 0
C\J
I I
CJ) CJ)
CJ)
I
~:.:.:.:.: .........
:::::::::
0 :
C\J: I :
(:.:.:.
I
0
C\J
I
r---
I
0
f'..
I
TREATMENT
CJ)
I
-1
O.
C\J:
.:I :.
I
0
C\J
I
-1
Figure 1. Weight loss by treatment in Trial 2. The dappled areas represent
the water intake following transportation.
RESEARCH BULLETIN 1048 7
included in initial weight. Data that include water consumption are
theoretically more correct than those based on feedlot weight. However,
water intake data were obtained on a group basis and could not be treated
statistically.
Differences between the intermediate-haul and long-haul groups
were very slight. This suggests that transportation of animals causes
essentially no increase in shrink when compared with holding animals in
confinement without feed or water.
Animals that had access to feed and water for seven days lost the least
amount of weight. In fact, many individuals regained their original weight
and even more. This is in contrast with the results in Trial 1 where feed
and water did not prevent further losses. However, in Trial 1, the animals
were confined indoors in close quarters, whereas, in Trial 2 the steers
were in an outside feedlot under conditions more similar to their origin. In
spite of this, they still did not regain, on the average, their original weight.
Carcass yield on the basis of feedlot weight for all groups except
IH7DH and SHIS averaged over 2% less than for the SHIS group (table 2).
This represents approximately a 10 kg (22 Ibs.) decrease in carcass weight
associated with holding and transport and is consistent with the results
from Trial 1. This represents over 50% of the incremental loss of gross live
weight compared with the SHIS animals. This observation, coupled with
the difficulty with which the original weight loss was regained, suggests
that weight losses experienced during the handling and transport involved
physiological changes more substantial than temporary loss in gut fill or
superficial dehydration. The rapid early loss of weight indicates that the
stress of handling may initiate these physiological processes.
The three experiments were conducted under as similar conditions as
possible so that the main difference between experiments would be to
climatic conditions. During the October trial, the mean daily temperature
in Columbia, Missouri was 9°C (44°F) and the extremes for the trial period
were 2°C(27°F) and 20°C(64°F). For the February trial, the corresponding
values were -12°C(15°F), -26°C{-15°F) and -1°C(30°F), and for the August
trial they were 28°C(82°F), 19°C(63°F) and 35.5°C(95°F).
Weight losses in the October trial were significantly greater than in
either of the other trials (figure 2). This was true whether or not correction
was made for water consumption.
The design of the trial was such that it was not possible to determine
with any confidence that the increase in weight loss was associated with
the climatic conditions. However, the difference was so striking and the
environmental temperatures for each experiment were so dissimilar that
possible biological mechanisms ought to be considered. If stress is a
determining factor in weight losses during handling and transportation,
then it is possible that the animal responds to incremental stressors. It can
be assumed that abnormally high or low environmental temperatures by
8 MISSOURI AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
~ z
a:
I en
~
45
30
15
t-=
() o
co
W
LL
DATE
Figure 2. Weight loss by season in Trial 2. Average overall treatments.
RESEARCH BULLETIN 1048 9
themselves were stressful. The animals under the cold and hot conditions
would, therefore, be already subject to stress so that the increment of stress
during handling and holding would be less for such animals. It is also
possible that the temperature-stressed animals had undergone some
adaption to stress before the additional stress of handling. It might also be
postulated that the handling and transportation conditions may mitigate
some of the stress of the feedlot environmental temperatures. None of
these hypotheses can be tested with the current data, but they should
provide fruitful areas of future research.
It can be seen with some clarity that at least stressful environmental
temperatures did not increase weight loss during handling and transportation.
This is at variance with the data reported by Harston (1959), but
exact details of the experimental conditions for those data were not
reported. Hahn et al., 1978, observed a slight increase in weight loss with
increasing environmental temperature in animals held in environmentally
controlled chambers, but the environmental extremes obtained did
not correspond to the conditions of the present experiment. It would be
logical to assume greater water losses by animals at high temperatures
with low relative humidities, but the present experiment did not include
such conditions.
Trial 3. There were smaller weight losses among animals in Trial 3
than among animals of the other trials, but the longest time between
withdrawal of feed and slaughter was 22 hours (table 3). There was no
difference in shrink between animals transported and fasted and those
that were simply held for the same length of time. This suggests that the
emotional and environmental insults connected specifically with transportation
are not a significant factor in weight loss. It appears that
withholding of feed and water from an animal otherwise environmentally
disturbed by handling and confinement is the major influence on weight
TABLE 3. WEIGHT LOSS (TRIAL 3)
Feedlot Abattoir Carcass
Treatment wt wt Shrink Shrink yield
kg %
Control 1 473.5 469.8 3.7a .8a 60.8
Fasted 474.7 450.9 21.8b 4.6b 62.3
Control 2 490.8 486.1 4.7a 1.1a 61.5
Fasted-Hauled 481.7 460.9 20.8b 4.3b 62.9
Hauled 466.3 462.4 3.9a .8a 61.2
NPC 495.6 490.8 4.8a Loa 61.6
abMeans in the same column with a different superscript differ (P>.05).
10 MISSOURI AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
loss. The influence of handling, confinement, etc., as opposed to the simple
withholding of feed and water could not be determined in this experiment.
It would be extremely difficult to isolate the influence of handling,
confinement, etc. because the experimental observations such as identification,
weighing and sorting are major disturbances in themselves. In this
trial they were as minimal as possible.
There was no significant influence of conditioning by regular handling.
Empirical observations seemed also to indicate that behavorial
stress was no greater for animals that had not been handled regularly
before the slaughter date. A longer and more intensive conditioning
treatment may have shown some advantage, but such treatment could
very conceivably influence feedlot performance.
The findings emphasize the substantial nature of weight loss during
transportation of slaughter cattle. Although this is recognized by the
marketing system, the actual extent of losses may be greater than
generally presumed.
Two aspects of these data appear to be significant in a more realistic
understanding of the nature and extent of shrink. The first is that weight
losses appear to occur in body tissue and the proportion of weight lost as
gut fill is smaller than had previously been assumed. This fact has serious
implications upon the methods by which animals are handled subsequent
to sale but before slaughter. Not only quantity, but quality of product may
be affected by this tissue weight loss.
The second aspect that needs to be considered is the difficulty with
which lost weight is regained. Perfunctory feed and water offerings to
cattle under the stress and disruption of handling and transportation is
likely to be even less effective than the realimentation regimens used in
this experiment which took at least seven days to restore the weight losses
occasioned by 48 hours of fasting and handling.
Animals in this trial were weighed, but not bled at the feedlot. The
hauled and faster-hauled groups were loaded into a low goose-neck trailor
and hauled about 80 km. Thus, they were exposed to no more stress than
those that went directly to slaughter. The hauled group was slaughtered
the same day as Control 1. This brief, mild stress did not result in shrink
greater than that observed for the controls. This indicates that handling
and hauling conditions can be manipulated to reduce weight losses, at
least in certain circumstances.
Abbenhaus, C. R. and R. C. Penny. 1951. Shrink characteristics of fat cattle
transported by truck. Chicago Union Stockyard and Transit Co., Chicago,
Illinois.
Hahn, G. L., W. D. Clark, D. G. Stephens and M. D. Shanklin. 1978. Interaction of
temperature and relative humidity on shrinkage offasting sheep, swine and beef
cattle. Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Ann. Mtg., Logan, Utah.
Harston, C. R. 1959. Cattle shrinkage depends on where, when, and what you
market. Montana Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 211.
Henning, G. F. and P. R. Thomas. 1962. Factors influencing the shrinkage of
livestock from farm to first market. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 925.
Raikes, R. and D. S. Tilley. 1975. Weight loss offed steers during marketing. Amer.
J. Agr. Econ. 57:1.
Self, H. L. and N. Gay. 1972. Shrink during shipment of feeder cattle. J. Anim. Sci.
35:489.
The University of Missouri is an equal opportunity institution
