Quantitative analysis of participant perspectives on use of different calf handling and restraint methods for spring processing of beef calves in western Canada

Abstract

Calf handling for spring processing represents one of the few times calves are handled in extensive production systems for the purpose of welfare and productivity interventions. The objective of this study was to identify the perspectives and preferences for common beef calf handling methods from those with experience in beef production. This study is the quantitative analysis of an online survey of 863 participants in calf handling events in western Canada. The survey used video clips to highlight three common handling practices of roping and wresting (RW), roping and Nord forks (NF), and tilt tables (TT). Participants were asked to rate how acceptable it was to use a method on a 5-point Likert scale, as well as rank which method they would most prefer and least prefer to use. Additional questions included demographics, scoring empathy towards animals, factors important to animal welfare, their experience with different methods, performance of tasks within spring processing events, and factors influencing decision to use a method. The acceptability of a method had weak (TT: ρ = 0.21, p < 0.001) to no correlation (RW and NF: p > 0.05) with the preference to use the method, indicating that a method might be deemed acceptable to use but not what a participant would prefer to use for handling and restraining calves. Participants were more likely to prefer to use RW and NF if they had experience with these methods compared to those that indicated they had no experience with RW or NF (odds ratio = 7.98, 95%CI = 1.51-41.99, p = 0.01; odds ratio = 21.1, 95%CI = 3.25-138.46, p = 0.01 for RW and NF, respectively). The likelihood of ranking a method as most preferred was influenced by the tasks a participant had previously performed during processing and varied among methods. The influence of tasks an individual performed on preference to use a method highlights areas for potential innovation, particularly in the areas of needle administration with RW and NF, and calf handling and castrating with TT. Owners placed more importance on factors related to logistics than other factors when deciding which method to use (χ² = 107.9, df = 48, p < 0.001). Best practice recommendations and assurance programs should focus on calf experience and humane handling, with guidance on how that could be achieved within different types of handling methods.

Keywords: beef cattle; calf management; mixed methods; perceptions; values.

Figure 1.

Participant ranking of acceptability (A), preference to use (B), and their assumption of public preference (C) of three common calf handling and restraint methods in western Canada.

Figure 2.

Distribution of participants’ who identified as owners of cattle rating of importance (1 = not important to 6 = extremely important) of factors when deciding what handing and restraint method to use for processing beef calves (n = 46, χ² = 107.9, df = 48, p < 0.001).

Figure 3.

Distribution of rating of importance (1 = not important to 6 = extremely important) of factor when deciding what handing and restraint method to use for processing beef calves by factor and most preferred method to use. Distribution of factor ratings differed between methods for time efficiency (χ² = 25.03, df = 10, p = 0.005), size of calves (χ² = 21.5, df = 10, p = 0.02), number of works (χ² = 39.1, df = 10, p = 0.0005), number of calves (χ² = 20.6, df = 10, p = 0.02), and human safety (χ² = 56.6, df = 10, p = 0.0005), and tradition (χ² = 44.9, df = 10, p = 0.005).