Ron Torell
Back to Basics
Docility
The older I get, the more I enjoy being around docile people and cattle. Life is easier that way. For example, my wife of 35 years is generally a docile, calm and collected person. By her own admission, however, she can get worked up and on the hook. She insists it is her Italian heritage, but it may be I just know which buttons to push and how or when to push those buttons.
Cattle are the same way. I don't want to infer that we want our range cows to act like two-step farmer cows (take two steps and stop). We need our range cows to step out and cover the country when asked to. At the same time, we need to be able to approach our cattle and handle them without a fight while not having concerns for our safety. In this installment of "Back to Basics," let's discuss the benefits of breeding and handling our cattle with docility in mind. Let's review some of the published research that has been done in this area.
Both the American Angus Association (http://www.angus.org) and the North American Limousin Foundation (http://www.nalf.org/) have supported a considerable amount of research to study the heritability of docility and to develop a docility scoring and expected progeny difference (EPD) system. Docility is moderately heritable (Le Neindre et al., 2000), meaning selection for that trait could be an efficient method of passing those temperament attributes on to offspring, good or bad. From a practical standpoint, we have all seen this occur. We have all purchased a bull with a sour attitude and watched as that same attitude showed up several years later in the daughters. The same can be said about the docile bull and his daughters.
One of the authorities in the field of animal behavior, cattle handling and facility design is Temple Grandin of Colorado State University. She has very clearly shown that poor temperament in beef cattle is associated with reduced performance, health and carcass quality. It is documented that cattle with calmer dispositions have higher average daily gains (Burrow, 1997) and decreased incidence of dark-cutting beef (Voisinet et al., 1997). Fell et al. (1999) found that feedlot cattle with sour attitudes had lower immune function and tougher meat. From an economic standpoint, Busby et al. (2005) showed that more-docile feedlot cattle returned $62.19 more per head than aggressive cattle, primarily due to increased feedlot performance and carcass quality. It is for all the above economic reasons that selection for docile cattle makes sense.
From a practical standpoint, Grandin (1989) very clearly shows the increased human safety requirements associated with handling excitable cattle, as well as the added cost of equipment and facility repair. This safety factor is multiplied given today's limited labor pool for experienced livestock handlers capable and knowledgeable of handling excitable cattle in a tender way.
Researchers also studied ontogenetic factors (Le Neindre et al., 2000). Exposing animals to good handling practices at an early age had a lasting effect on how docility or lack of docility was expressed in that animal's behavior later in life. The author has seen this with replacement heifers during the development phase and the payoff in how the animal responds to handling as a mature cow. By taking the time when the animal is young to positively reinforce good handling practices, the animal grows comfortable with humans and may overcome some of the inherent lack of docility.
Several breed associations currently list docility EPDs, with a greater number indicating progeny with calmer behavior. The scoring systems use a 1-to-6 scale, with 1 being very docile cattle exhibiting mild dispositions and 6 being very aggressive cattle with extreme temperament. I personally feel this is an important EPD to utilize when selecting bulls for your operation. The payback down the road could be enormous.
If docility EPDs are not available for a particular animal, such as when selecting commercial replacement heifers, you can run your own quick test. Separate the animal from the remaining animals, hold the animal in a corner of the corral or in an alley, then encroach on the animal's flight zone. Mentally measure the response of the animal in relation to others placed in the same situation. Generally an animal will reveal its genetic propensity for docility under this situation.
That is enough of my rambling for this month. I need to go do a little damage control with my wife. I may have pushed her button with that opening statement! As always, if you would like to discuss this article or simply would like to talk cows, do not hesitate to contact me at 775-738-1721 or torellr@unce.unr.edu.
Literature Cited:
Burrow, H. M. 1997. Measurements of temperament and their relationships with performance traits of beef cattle. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 65:477-495.
Busby, W.D., P. Beedle, D. Strohbehn, L.R. Corah and J.F. Stika. 2005. Effects on disposition on feedlot gain and quality grade. J. Anim. Sci. 83 (Suppl. 2):63. (Abstr.)
Fell, L.R., I.G. Colditz, K.H. Walker and D.L. Watson. 1999. Associations between temperament, performance and immune function in cattle entering a commercial feedlot. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 39:795-802. [CrossRef]
Golden, B.L., D.J. Garrick, S. Newman and R.M. Enns. 2000. Economically relevant traits a framework for the next generation of EPDs. Pages 2-13 in Proc. Beef Improvement Federation, Wichita, Kan.
Grandin, T. 1989. Behavioral principles of livestock handling. Prof. Anim. Sci. 5:1-11.
LeNeindre, P., G. Trillat, X. Boivin, A. Boissy, J. Sapa, F. Menissier. 2000. Temperament and docility in Limousin cattle. International Limousin Conference, France 2000. ACS-ERH, INRA Theix, 63122, France.
Scanga, J.A., K.E. Belk, J.D. Tatum, T. Grandin and G.C. Smith. 1998. Factors contributing to the incidence of dark-cutting beef. J. Anim. Sci. 76:2040-2047. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
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 greater 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 greater average daily gains than cattle with excitable temperaments. J. Anim. Sci. 75:892-896. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
Willham, R.L. 1972. The role of maternal effects in animal breeding. III. Biometrical aspects of maternal effects in animals. J. Anim. Sci. 35:1288-1293. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
[Click here to go to the top of the page.]