tentang usaha dagang

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

Anda baru saja membaca artikel yang berkategori dengan judul "tentang usaha dagang". Anda bisa bookmark halaman ini dengan URL https://rasyidpeternakanmrq.blogspot.com/2018/12/tentang-usaha-dagang.html.