J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J. Anim Sci. 2006. 84:3100-3103. doi:10.2527/jas.2006-055
© 2006 American Society of Animal Science
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Curley, K. O.
Right arrow Articles by Randel, R. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Curley, K. O., Jr.
Right arrow Articles by Randel, R. D.

ANIMAL PRODUCTION

Technical note: Exit velocity as a measure of cattle temperament is repeatable and associated with serum concentration of cortisol in Brahman bulls1

K. O. Curley, Jr.*, J. C. Paschal{ddagger}, T. H. Welsh, Jr.* and R. D. Randel{dagger},2

1 Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, *College Station 77843, and {dagger} Overton 75684; and and {ddagger} Texas Cooperative Extension, Corpus Christi 78406


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 LITERATURE CITED
 
The objectives of this study were 1) to compare temperament assessments, using multiple techniques and over repeated observations, to gauge temperament over the long-term and 2) to evaluate the relationship of the temperament appraisals with serum concentrations of cortisol (CS). Measures of temperament were gathered over 3 repeated observations (60-d interval) of yearling, fall-born Brahman bulls (initial BW = 320 ± 4 kg; n = 66). Temperament assessments included exit velocity (EV), which was the rate at which the bulls exited the squeeze chute and traversed a fixed distance (1.83 m); pen scores (PEN; 1 = quiet to 5 = excited), ascertained from animal behavior while penned in small groups (n = 5); and chute scores (CHUTE; 1 = quiet to 5 = excited), determined from behavioral responses to restraint on the weigh scale. Temperament measures obtained during the initial data collection (d 0) were all positively correlated (r ≥0.35, P < 0.005) with one another. Additionally, PEN (r = 0.29, P < 0.05) and EV (r = 0.26, P < 0.05) were positively correlated with CS, whereas CHUTE was not (r = 0.09, P = 0.46). All serial EV measures were positively correlated (r > 0.31, P < 0.02). All PEN were positively correlated (r > 0.31, P < 0.01), whereas serial measures of CHUTE were not (P > 0.3). Exit velocity was positively correlated with CS within d 0 (r = 0.26, P = 0.04) and 120 (r = 0.44, P < 0.01). The EV data obtained at d 0 were transformed into a discrete variable, EV ranking (EV RANK; 1 to 3 scale), in which 1 equated to <1 SD below the mean and 3 equated to >1 SD above the mean. Mean EV (P < 0.01) decreased from d 0 (2.82 ± 0.07 m/sec) to 120 (2.11 ± 0.10 m/sec). Time also influenced (P < 0.01) CS; mean CS decreased between d 0 (14.6 ± 0.7 ng/mL) and 120 (11.1 ± 0.8 ng/mL). Measures of EV can be a valuable tool for the assessment of cattle temperament and a possible predictor of temperament and stress responsiveness to future animal handling events.

Key Words: cattle • cortisol • exit velocity • temperament


   INTRODUCTION
Top
 Abstract
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 LITERATURE CITED
 
Human-animal interactions in cattle production commonly occur through handling coupled with various management practices. Animal temperament has been shown to have negative impacts on aspects of dairy and beef production. Cattle with wilder temperaments exhibit lower BW gain (Burrow, 1997Go; Voisinet et al., 1997bGo), produce tougher meat (Voisinet et al., 1997aGo), have inhibited milk production (Drugociu et al., 1977Go; Breuer et al., 2000Go), and yield increased amounts of bruise trim due to injuries acquired during transportation (Fordyce et al., 1988Go). A useful tool for discerning cattle temperament must be reliable, repeatable, and linked to the individual animal’s stress responsiveness. Various techniques have been utilized to assess animal temperament; however, many are of a subjective nature, thus allowing for human error or bias to affect the temperament assessment made.

Our objectives in this study were to compare temperament appraisals using multiple techniques over repeated observations, as well as the relationship of the temperament assessments with serum concentrations of cortisol.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
 Abstract
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 LITERATURE CITED
 
Research protocols were approved by an institutional Animal Care and Use Committee; IACUC No. 2003-63.

Animals

Sixty-six yearling, fall-born (2002) American Gray Brahman bulls were utilized to identify the repeatability of temperament measures, assessed by exit velocity, pen score, and chute score, and the relationship of such measures to a physiological indicator of stress. The cattle were part of a purebred bull herd and remained on the ranch property for the duration of the experiment.

Collection of Data

Data were collected on 3 separate occasions (d 0, 60, and 120). Cattle were herded through a chute system where they were weighed, assigned a chute score, and timed for exit velocity as they were released from the chute system. Bulls were subsequently herded through a second working chute and restrained with a hydraulic squeeze to allow collection of a 15-mL blood sample via coccygeal venipuncture. Upon exiting the second working chute, the bulls were confined to a pen in small groups of 5, where they were assigned pen scores. Serum was harvested from the blood samples and stored at –20°C until the concentration of cortisol was determined.

Temperament Measures

Three methods of temperament assessment were utilized, which included 2 subjective measures, chute score and pen score, and 1 objective measure, exit velocity. Chute scoring was adapted from the method of Grandin (1993)Go, in which visual appraisals of each bull, while confined but not restrained in a working chute, were the basis of the scoring. Pen scores (Hammond et al., 1996Go) were based on visual assessments of the bulls, while being confined to a pen (5 x 10 m) in small groups (n = 5). Both pen and chute scores were based on a 1 to 5 scale, with a score of 1 representing a completely calm animal and a score of 5 representing an extremely excited animal. When making the pen score appraisal, the assessor would attempt to approach the bulls to gauge their response. Throughout data collection, chute and pen scores were assigned by the same individual. Exit velocity (Burrow et al., 1988Go) was determined as the rate at which the animals exited the working chute and traversed a fixed distance (1.83 m). Infrared sensors were used to remotely trigger the start and stop of a timing apparatus (FarmTek Inc., North Wylie, TX).

Cortisol RIA

Serum concentrations of cortisol were determined on duplicate aliquots of serum samples using a single-antibody RIA procedure that was adapted from that of Willard et al. (1995)Go. The cortisol antiserum cross-reacts with corticosterone, 60%; deoxycorticosterone, 48%; progesterone, 0.01%; and estradiol, 0.01%. Inter- and intraassay CV were 9.4%.

Statistical Analysis

The exit velocity obtained on d 0 was transformed into an exit velocity ranking (EV RANK) to create a discrete variable based on exit velocity. Bulls slower than 1 SD from the mean exit velocity received a 1; those faster than 1 SD from the mean received a 3; and all other bulls received a 2. Repeated measures ANOVA was conducted using the mixed model procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) for a factorial analysis of time and EV RANK effects on exit velocity and serum concentration of cortisol. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between exit velocity, EV RANK, cortisol concentration, chute score, and pen score, both within and across each of the 3 time points of data collection.


   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Top
 Abstract
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
LITERATURE CITED
 
Temperament measures obtained during the initial data collection (d 0) were all positively correlated (r ≥0.35, P < 0.005) to one another. Additionally, pen score (r = 0.29. P < 0.05) and exit velocity (r = 0.26, P < 0.05) were positively correlated with cortisol concentration, whereas chute score was not (r = 0.09, P = 0.46). Whereas the various methodologies for temperament assessment may measure slightly different aspects of animal behavior, they do relate to one another and, in the case of exit velocity and pen score, to increased circulating glucocorticoids. Relationships between temperament and serum concentrations of cortisol have been previously observed; excitable Brahman heifers were shown to have significantly greater cortisol concentrations than calm heifers (Stahringer et al., 1990Go). In addition, Lay et al. (1992)Go noted that dairy cows exhibited a blunted stress response to handling compared with cattle used in other studies that were less accustomed to human contact.

Within the next 2 data collections, relationships between the temperament assessments did not persist. On d 60 only pen score and chute score were positively correlated (r = 0.4, P < 0.01) to each other, and on d 120 no measures of temperament were related. However, relationships between temperament measures and serum concentrations of cortisol did continue; exit velocity (r = 0.44, P < 0.001) and pen score (r = 0.25, P < 0.05) were positively correlated with cortisol concentrations on d 120. Because of the occurrence of unforeseen external stressors while collecting data on d 60, concentrations of cortisol were markedly elevated in all the bulls and thus were excluded from our analysis. As a result, comparisons between the various assessments of temperament and physiological stress indicators were not considered to be valid for this time point. Although the correlations between different temperament assessment methodologies changed over the 3 time points of data collection, the relationship between exit velocity and cortisol concentration remained constant from d 0 to d 120.

Relationships between the initial temperament measures and subsequent measures were analyzed in order to identify the consistency of each method’s assessment of temperament (Table 1Go). Of the 3 temperament assessments, chute score at d 0 had the least association with subsequent measures in this study. Initial temperament appraisals using pen score or EV RANK were positively correlated with subsequent temperament assessments (Table 1Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Pearson correlation coefficients between temperament assessments of bulls (n = 66) at d 0 and subsequent temperament assessments made 60 and 120 d later
 
Correlations between measures of temperament on d 60 and those on d 120 were numerically greater for exit velocity (r = 0.47, P < 0.001) and pen score (r = 0.52, P < 0.001) compared with d 0 to 120 correlations (exit velocity: r = 0.30, P < 0.05; pen score: r = 0.32, P < 0.05). One speculation concerning any measure of temperament is that as the novelty of human-animal interaction decreased, so would animal temperament scores. The perseverance of individual behavioral responses to handling has been demonstrated in cattle (Grandin, 1993Go). Our observations of numerically greater correlations between the latter 2 measures of temperament may suggest a leveling of each animal’s response to human handling and may in fact be more accurate assessments of the individual bull’s temperament.

Over the course of collecting the data, exit velocity was influenced by time (P < 0.001) as the mean exit velocity decreased from d 0 (2.82 ± 0.07 m/sec) to 120 (2.11 ± 0.10 m/sec). On d 60, exit velocity (2.25 ± 0.12 m/sec) differed (P < 0.001) from d 0 but not from d 120 (P = 0.25). The decrease in exit velocity over time supports the idea of animal temperament measurements decreasing with repeated handling; however, the fact that there was no significant change in exit velocity from d 60 to 120 may suggest a limit to such an acclimation to human-animal interactions. Exit velocity measured on d 60 and 120 was also associated (P < 0.001) with the original EV RANK (Figure 1Go). Thus, the assessments of bulls with a particularly calm temperament (i.e., EV RANK = 1) or rather excitable temperament (i.e., EV RANK = 3) proved to hold true 4 mo following the initial temperament appraisal.


Figure 1
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Least squares means for exit velocity over 3 data collections (d 0, 60, 120) for each exit velocity ranking (EV RANK). Bulls slower than 1 SD from the mean exit velocity on d 0 (2.83 ± 0.11 m/sec) were classified as EV RANK 1 (n = 11), those faster than 1 SD from the mean received an EV RANK of 3 (n = 16), and all other bulls received an EV RANK of 2 (n = 39).

 
Serum concentrations of cortisol on d 0 were correlated (r = 0.62, P < 0.001) with cortisol concentrations on d 120. Analysis of changes in cortisol over time indicated differences (P = 0.008) due to ranking by exit velocity on d 0 (Figure 2Go). The differences in serum concentrations of cortisol due to exit velocity ranking persisted between d 0 and 120. Because the EV RANK was determined from exit velocity on d 0 and relative differences in mean concentrations of cortisol due to EV RANK were still observed 120 d later, this measure of temperament appears to be indicative of physiological stress responses of animals’ future encounters with humans.


Figure 2
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Least squares means of serum cortisol concentrations at the initial and final data collections (d 0 and 120) for animals classified by exit velocity ranking (EV RANK). Rank was based on the mean exit velocity measures obtained on d 0 (2.83 ± 0.11 m/sec), with bulls slower than 1 SD from the mean exit velocity classified as 1 (1.62 ± 0.1 m/sec, n = 11), those faster than 1 SD from mean classified as 3 (4.04 ± 0.16 m/sec, n = 16), and all other bulls classified as 2 (2.80 ± 0.07 m/sec, n = 39).

 
These data suggest that assessment of cattle temperament with exit velocity measures may be more useful than subjective methodologies such as pen score or chute score. All measures of temperament indicated an adaptation of the animals to interactions with humans over the 120 d of data collection, with both pen score and exit velocity fluctuating less than chute score. As the overt indicators used to qualify temperament with pen and chute scores seemed to be less apparent as time progressed, the bull’s adrenal response to handling was relatively unchanged. Although there was no relationship between serum concentration of cortisol and chute score, this physiological parameter of stress responsiveness was positively related with pen score; moreover, cortisol was more robustly coupled with exit velocity. Thus, temperament assessed with subjective methodologies does not correspond to stress responsiveness as well as it does with the measure of exit velocity. Exit velocity is therefore a valuable tool for the assessment of cattle temperament and a possible indicator of temperament through an animal’s lifetime.


   Footnotes
 
1 Acknowledgments: This manuscript includes research supported and conducted by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, the Texas A&M University System. This study was a contribution to the Western Regional Research Project W-112, Reproductive Performance in Domestic Ruminants. The authors would also like to thank C. Shivers and the American Brahman Breeders Association, as well as J. D. Hudgins Inc. Back

2 Corresponding author: r-randel{at}tamu.edu

Received for publication January 30, 2006. Accepted for publication June 14, 2006.


   LITERATURE CITED
Top
 Abstract
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 LITERATURE CITED
 


Breuer, K., P. H. Hemsworth, J. L. Barnett, L. R. Matthews, and G. J. Coleman. 2000. Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 66:273–288.[CrossRef][Medline]

Burrow, H. M. 1997. Measurements of temperament and their relationships with performance traits of beef cattle. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 65:477–495.

Burrow, H. M., G. W. Seifert, and N. J. Corbet. 1988. A new technique for measuring temperament in cattle. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 17:154–157.

Drugociu, G., L. Runceanu, R. Nicorici, V. Hritcu, and S. Pascal. 1977. Nervous typology of cows as a determining factor of sexual productive behaviour. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 5:1262. (Abstr.)

Fordyce, G., J. R. Wythes, W. R. Shorthose, D. W. Underwood, and R. K. Shepherd. 1988. Cattle temperaments in extensive beef herds in northern Queensland. 2: Effect of temperament on carcass and meat quality. Aust. J. Exp. Agr. 28:689–693.[CrossRef]

Grandin, T. 1993. Behavioral agitation during handling of cattle is persistent over time. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 36:1–9.

Hammond, A. C., T. A. Olson, C. C. Chase Jr., E. J. Bowers, R. D. Randel, C. N. Murphy, D. W. Vogt, and A. Tewolde. 1996. Heat tolerance in two tropically adapted Bos taurus breeds, Senepol and Romosinuano, compared with Brahman, Angus, and Hereford cattle in Florida. J. Anim. Sci. 74:295–303.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Lay, D. C., Jr., T. H. Friend, C. L. Bowers, K. K. Grissom, and O. C. Jenkins. 1992. A comparative physiological and behavioral study of freeze and hot-iron branding using dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 70:1121–1125.[Abstract]

Stahringer, R. C., R. D. Randel, and D. A. Neuendorff. 1990. Effects of naloxone and animal temperament on serum luteinizinghormone and cortisol concentrations in seasonally anestrous Brahman heifers. Theriogenology 34:393–406.[CrossRef][Medline]

Voisinet, B. D., T. Grandin, S. F. O. Connor, J. D. Tatum, and M. J. Deesing. 1997a. Bos indicus cross feedlot cattle with excitable temperaments have tougher meat and a higher incidence of borderline dark cutters. Meat Sci. 46:367–377.[CrossRef]

Voisinet, B. D., T. Grandin, J. D. Tatum, S. F. O. Connor, and J. J. Struthers. 1997b. Feedlot cattle with calm temperaments have higher average daily gains than cattle with excitable temperaments. J. Anim. Sci. 75:892–896.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Willard, S. T., J. A. Carroll, R. D. Randel, and T. H. Welsh Jr. 1995. In vitro cell culture and adrenocorticotropin secretion by Indian blackbuck antelope (Antilope cervicapra) anterior pituitary glands collected under field conditions. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 26:252–259.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
N. C. Burdick, J. P. Banta, D. A. Neuendorff, J. C. White, R. C. Vann, J. C. Laurenz, T. H. Welsh Jr., and R. D. Randel
Interrelationships among growth, endocrine, immune, and temperament variables in neonatal Brahman calves
J Anim Sci, October 1, 2009; 87(10): 3202 - 3210.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
R. F. Cooke, J. D. Arthington, B. R. Austin, and J. V. Yelich
Effects of acclimation to handling on performance, reproductive, and physiological responses of Brahman-crossbred heifers
J Anim Sci, October 1, 2009; 87(10): 3403 - 3412.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
S. Core, T. Widowski, G. Mason, and S. Miller
Eye white percentage as a predictor of temperament in beef cattle
J Anim Sci, June 1, 2009; 87(6): 2168 - 2174.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Professional Animal ScientistHome page
R. C. Vann, J. A. Parish, and W. B. McKinley
Case Study: Mississippi Cattle Producers Gain Insight into Temperament Effects on Feedlot Performance and Subsequent Meat Quality
Professional Animal Scientist, December 1, 2008; 24(6): 628 - 633.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J HeredHome page
B. Gutierrez-Gil, N. Ball, D. Burton, M. Haskell, J. L. Williams, and P. Wiener
Identification of Quantitative Trait Loci Affecting Cattle Temperament
J. Hered., November 1, 2008; 99(6): 629 - 638.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
J. D. Nkrumah, D. H. Crews Jr, J. A. Basarab, M. A. Price, E. K. Okine, Z. Wang, C. Li, and S. S. Moore
Genetic and phenotypic relationships of feeding behavior and temperament with performance, feed efficiency, ultrasound, and carcass merit of beef cattle
J Anim Sci, October 1, 2007; 85(10): 2382 - 2390.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Curley, K. O.
Right arrow Articles by Randel, R. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Curley, K. O., Jr.
Right arrow Articles by Randel, R. D.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS