Interpretation of the OIE Chapter 7.1, Article 7.1.4 General Principles for Animal Welfare for Livestock and Poultry Production and ISO/TS 34700

By Temple Grandin
Dept of Animal Science
Colorado State University

Updated March 2017

The OlE (2013) has published general principles for the welfare of animals in livestock production systems in Chapter 7.1, Article 7.1.4. This guidance document covers farm production units (Fraser et al., 2013). There are other older OIE guidelines that cover transport, slaughter, and depopulation for disease control. Below the author will provide specific examples of how the OIE (2013) guidelines for animal production on the farm can be used. At that time of writing, the OIE still had no specific guidelines and assessments for the production of pigs and laying hens. These three types of animals have more complex and contentious welfare issues related to the design of housing systems than fish, beef cattle or broiler chickens. Since the issues are more complex, it will probably be more difficult for all the countries in the OIE to agree on an international guideline. This may explain why guidelines for raising beef cattle, dairy cows, broiler chickens, and fish were developed first. The author will provide opinions on how the OIE guidelines could be interpreted. The reader must remember that OIE guidelines are designed to provide guidance in many different countries where there is a great variety of conditions. The ISO/TS 34700 Technial Specification states that the OIE General Principles provide guidance to ensure that the five freedoms and complied with.

1. "Genetic selection should always take into account the health and welfare of animals." (OIE, 2013)

This is an area of concern by many scientists (Rodenbury and Turner, 2012). Some of the severe welfare problems caused by indiscriminant selection for productivity are: high percentages of broken bones due to osteoporosis in laying hens (Wilkins, et al., 2011), Iameness and leg abnormalities in rapidly growing broiler chickens (Caplen et al., 2012), decreased disease resistance in modern hybrid pigs (Jiang et al., 2013), loss of parasite resistance in sheep (Greer, 2008) and reproduction problems in dairy cows correlated with increased milk production (Spencer, 2013) Further research has shown that high producing cows have lower body condition, high percentage of lame cows, and thinner fat pads in their feet (Green et al., 2011; VonKeyserlingh et al., 2012). Walsh et al. (2010) reported that negative energy balance is a major factor in low dairy cow fertility. Negative energy balance occurs when a high producing dairy cow is not able to eat enough nutrients to prevent loss of body condition. The author refers to these problems as biological system overload. In the future, they may cause some of the most severe animal welfare problems (Grandin and Deesing, 2013). It is interesting that the OIE listed the genetic problems first. People from developing countries who are on the OIE committees may have observed both welfare and production problems when modern high producing hybrids were first introduced to their countries. They were more likely to get sick or die under more primitive conditions. Rodenbury and Turner (2012) are concerned about loss of functionality and welfare problems on animals genetically selected to produce more eggs, milk, or meat. Both scientists and some producers have stated that we need to determine what optimum production is and still have reasonable levels of disease resistance and longevity.

2. "Animals chosen for introduction into new environments should be suited to the local climate and able to adapt to diseases, parasites, and nutrition." (OIE, 2013)

Some problem areas would be high producing Holstein dairy cows housed in a very hot climate and not provided with artificial cooling. A good alternative would be crossing hardy local cattle with Holsteins to increase milk production but still remain sufficient heat tolerance to prevent heat stress (Galukandu et al., 2013). It is important that indigenous hardy local breeds are preserved (Yilmaz et al., 2013). Vordermeier et al. (2012) reports that Ethiopia native Zebu cattle were more resistant to tuberculosis than imported Holstein-Friesian dairy cows. To avoid either welfare or productivity problems, animals bred for high meat, egg or milk production usually require higher inputs of both expensive feeds (Thatcher et al., 2011) and environmentally controlled facilities.

3. "The physical environment, including the substrate (walking surface, resting surface, etc.) should be suited to the species so as to minimize risk of injury and transmission of diseases and parasites to animals." (OIE, 2013)

The trend in animal welfare assessments is to use animal based outcome measures (Wray et al., 2003, 2007; Velarde and Dalmau, 2013). The main outcome measures for welfare problems under this guideline would be high percentages of animals with the following problems ó lameness, dirty animals, leg injuries/swellings, hoof disease, foot pad lesions hock burn and breast blisters in poultry and areas of worn off fur or feathers. Some examples of housing that would be more likely to cause the above problems would be: slatted floors with the wrong slat spacing (Kilbride et al., 2009), cubicles (freestalls) for dairy cows that are too small, housing heavy cattle on bare concrete for long periods (Wagner, 2016), feedlots for beef cattle with deep mud, wet dirty litter in poultry barns (DeJong et al, 2014), damaged flooring, sharp edges on fences or failure to rotate pastures in wet climates. Some examples of good environments would be providing sufficient bedding to prevent soil from transferring onto the animals, plastic or rubber flooring that prevents injuries or daily access to dry outdoor lots or pasture (Flowers et al., 2007; deVries et al, 2015; Cook et al, 2016).

4. "The physical environment should allow comfortable resting, safe and comfortable movement including normal postural changes and the opportunity to perform types of natural behaviors that animals are motivated to perform." (OIE, 2013)

The first requirement to be in compliance would be that the animals should be able to turn around and stand and lie in normal positions. This guideline cover the most controversial animal welfare issue. Fraser et al. (2013) in their discussion of application of this section did not address the issue of sow gestation stalls where sows are not able to turn around and small hen cages which prevent a hen from standing at full posture. Fraser et al. (2013) did present strong evidence on the need to provide for behavior needs such as nest building in hens. They made it very clear that hens need to be able to have a place to perch and have a nesting area. It is the authorís opinion that the following systems would be in non-compliance with this guideline - sow gestation stalls which prevent a sow from turning around and small battery cages for laying hens that prevent a hen from standing in a normal upright position with her head up. Group sow housing and enriched furnished cages would be in compliance. A well-designed furnished cage provides both a secluded nest box and a perch (Tactacan et al., 2009). Hens are highly motivated to use a nest box. It also has a high enough ceiling to allow normal walking posture. Pigs are motivated to manipulate and root things with their nose (Van de Weerd and Day, 2009). They should be given either straw, other fibrous bedding material or specially designed rooting objects. Dairy cubicles should be sufficiently wide so that a cow is able to lie with her head in a normal curled back position (and not damage her legs on the rear concrete curb (Fulwider et al., 2007). Intensive housing facilities for all species should be stocked so that all animals or birds have the ability to sleep at the same time without being on top of each other. All of the above are bare minimum requirement.

5. "Social regrouping of animals should be managed to allow positive social behavior and minimize injury distress and chronic fear." (OIE, 2013)

Farm animals and poultry are social and being reared alone or in individual stalls does not allow normal social behavior. On dairies, young calves are often reared in individual stalls for disease control purposes. It is the authorís opinion that for a minimum compliance with this guideline, dairy calves should be housed in groups after six weeks. Sows in gestation stalls would not comply with this standard. There are differences in pig genetics in aggression (díEath et al., 2009). Practical experience has shown that certain hybrid lines of domestic pigs will fight aggressively when mixed. To make a successful switch from gestation stalls to group housing may require a change in pig genetics. For all species, when strange animals are mixed, they should be simultaneously placed in a new pen or pasture to avoid the problem of having another animal invading a resident animalís territory. Small groups of five or six pigs mixed in a small pen may fight more than mixing larger groups. Therefore, small groups of five or six sows are usually kept in the same group for their entire productive life. In larger pens filled with many more animals, an animal that is being attacked has room to escape. Another contentious issue is tie stalls for dairy cattle. These systems are common in many countries and dairy cows housed in these facilities usually do not have abnormal behavior. It is the authorís opinion that dairy cows housed in tie stalls should be let out every day to either pasture or an outdoor lot. The only exception to this recommendation would be severe seasonal weather conditions.

6. "For housed animals, air quality, temperature and humidity should support good animal health and not be aversive. Where extreme conditions occur, animals should not be prevented from using natural methods of thermo-regulation." (OIE, 2013)

Outcome based indicators of environmental problems would be high percentages of animals with eye problems such as conjunctivitis (OIE broiler guideline, 2013), open mouth panting in response to heat stress (Mader et al., 2006; Gaughan and Mader, 2014), shivering or huddling in response to cold stress or death losses. Research shows that during the summer, providing shade for feedlot cattle improves productivity (Barajas et al., 2013). Black Angus cattle had higher reductions in respiration rate when provided with shade than light tan Charolais cattle (Brown-Brandi et al., 2013). Black cattle have hotter surface temperature compared to breeds with lighter colored coats. High ammonia levels are aversive to poultry and sheep (Phillips et al., 2012). For both human and animal welfare, ammonia levels should not exceed 25 ppm in any type of animal facility. People reported more symptoms of headaches or eye discomfort at 25 ppm compared to 5 ppm or 0 ppm of ammonia (Sundblad et al., 2014). Ammonia should be measured at the level of the animals. On farms where intensively housed animals are l completely dependent on mechanical ventilation to prevent heat stress or suffocation deaths, either a back-up generator or a method for opening the building sides is required. In buildings with natural ventilation, this is not required. In cold climates, cold stress can often be prevented with windbreaks, deep straw or shelter (Anderson, et al., 2011). Heat stress or cold stress may also be deadly to animals when un-acclimated animals are brought to an area with a different climate. An example of death losses due to a lack of acclimation would be bringing cattle with slick summer coats to a cold climate. If these same cattle had been brought in earlier in the season and been given the opportunity to grow a winter coat before the weather got really cold, they may have be fine. Breeds of animals that originate from the tropics may have problems with cold stress in colder climates. Animal breeds (Holstein dairy cows) developed in colder climates may have more problems with heat stress in hot climates. Breeds that developed in the tropics have greater ability to lose heat. In all animals, several days or weeks are required for the animalís metabolism to adapt and acclimatize to a change in temperature (Roy and Collier, 2011).

7. "Animals should have access to sufficient feed and water suited to the animalís age and needs to maintain normal health and productivity and to prevent prolonged hunger, thirst or dehydration." (OIE, 2013)

This is one area where exclusive use of outcome measurements would be detrimental to welfare because a severe lack of feed or water may result in a slow stressful death. Ideally there should be sufficient feeder space so all birds or animals can all eat at the same time. Less feeder space can be provided if feed is always available. Outcome measures that indicate problems with access to feed may be several animals that become thin with poor body condition. These animals became skinny because they are pushed away from the feeder by dominant aggressive animals. Sufficient water supplies must be available to supply animals on the hottest days. In many animals, water requirements may double during hot weather (Arias and Mader, 2011). Beta-agonists fed at high doses may also violate the above principle. Loneragan et al. (2014) found that beta-agonists fed during the summer increased death losses in cattle.

8. "Diseases and parasites should be prevented and controlled as much as possible through good management practices. Animals with serious health problems should be isolated and treated promptly or killed humanely if treatment is not feasible or recovery is unlikely." (OIE, 2013)

Examples of outcome measure for this guideline would be health records that keep track of the percentages of sick animals, poor body condition or animals that have high levels of internal or external parasites. Poor condition of the hair coat or areas of hair loss are often signs of external parasites. In some organic or natural programs which require absolutely no use of antibiotics or other medications the producer may be tempted to withhold treatment of a sick animal. This is not acceptable from an animal welfare standpoint. Animal production is rapidly expanding in the developing world. There is a great need to train animal caretakers in basic husbandry because some people do not have basic knowledge of simple clinical signs of disease. In one recent bad case, caretakers did not know that coughing cattle are sick. Bald spots on animals due to hair loss from external parasites or scratching are also not acceptable.

9. "When painful procedures cannot be avoided, the resulting pain should be managed to the extent possible that available methods allow." (OIE, 2013)

Animals definitely perceive pain and research supports the use of anesthetics and analgesics (Coetzee, 2011, 2013; Stafford and Mellor, 2011). In areas of the world where pain relief is not available, castration and dehorning should be done at a young age. There are some difficult ethical questions in poor countries where antibiotics and anesthetics are not available for people. If l was the mother of a sick child I would probably steal antibiotics from a pig farm to save my child. When a big corporation starts a pig or poultry farm in a developing country, the animals may have better access to health care than the people. It is the authorís opinion that countries with poor access to health care, large corporations should insure that their employees also have access to essential medications.

10. "The handling of animals should foster a postive relationship between humans and animals and shoul not cause injury or lasting fear or avoidable stress" (OIE 2016).

Numerous research studies show that good stockmanship improves animal productivity (Fukasawa, M., 2017; Coleman and Hemsworth, 2014). People who have a positive attitude towards animals have more productive animals (Kauppinen et al, 2012). Aversive treatment of pigs resulted in lower rates of pregnancy (Hemsworth et al, 1986). Carefully acclimating animals to being handled can reduce fear of people. The effects of previous experiences on how animals react to handling in the future has been reviewed by Grandin and Shivley (2015) and Grandin (1997). Beef cattle that have been carefully acclimated to moving throught handling facilities have improved reproduction (Cooke et al, 2009). Dairy cattle that are more willing to approach people have lower somatic cell counts (Fulwider et al, 2007). Animal handling practices can be assessed with outcome based numerical scoring (Grandin, 2010, 1998; Woiwode et al, 2016; Simon et al, 2016). Flight distance and avoidance distance from people have been measured by Dotzi and Muchenje (2011) and Fulwider et al (2007). Postive experiences with people during rearing improves the subsequent production of dairy heifers (Bertenshaw et al, 2008).

11. "Owners and handlers should have sufficient skill and knowledge to insure that animals are treated in accordance with these principles." (OIE, 2013)

The importance of management commitment to good animal welfare cannot be over emphasized. Often people want to buy the magic new technology because they mistakenly believe that it will solve all their problems. Technology is NEVER a substitute for good management. It is possible to have a high level of animal welfare in very simple facilities. People working with animals must be trained in animal behavior, health, and welfare.

ISO Collaboration with the OIE on Animal Welfare

ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, in collaboration with the OIE has produced Technical Specification ISO/TS 34700. It is titled "Aniaml Welfare Management - General Requirements and Guidance in the Food Supply Chain." It was published in December 2016. The eleven OIE general principles for the welfare of animals in production (Chapter 7.1, Article 7.1.4 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code) are used as a basis for implementing an animal welfare plan. The ISO document also refers to specific OIE documents on transport, slaughter, and production of beef cattle, dairy cows, and broiler chickens.

To develop an ISO animal welfare plan will require a gap analysis. ISO recommends the use of animal based measures. Thresholds for these measures should be obtained from peer reviewed scientific publications. A gap analysis is a comparison of your present performance with future goals. For exmaple, a farm may have 20% lame dairy cows and the goal may be to reduce lameness to 5%. Research clearly shows that the best dairy farms can reduce lameness to 5% (Espejo et al, 2006; Cook et al, 2016). When beef cattle from extensive rances are handled, the use of electric prods can be easily reduced to less than 5% (Woiwode et al, 2016). Other measures that can be easily used are: flight distance (Fulwider et al, 2007), exit speed (Vetters et al, 2013; Curley et al, 2004), percentage falling (Simon et al, 2016); Woiwode et al, 2016, Grandin, 1998), and percentage of animals balking (freezing) or turning back during handling (Welfare Quality, 2009). The use of numerical measurements can help managers to continously improve. On dairies, producers were motivated to improve when they could see how their lameness percentages compared to other dairies (Chapinal et al, 2014). Scoring of the percentage of cattle that vocalize (moo or bellow) when they are restrained can locate problems that would be detrimental to animal welfare. Some of the problems are multiple shocks from electric prods (Grandin, 2001) and excessive pressure from a restraint device (Grandin, 2001; Bourquet et al, 2011). The percentage of cattle vocalizing when restrained should be 5% or less (Grandin, 2012, 2001; Woiwode et al, 2016, Simon et al, 2016). When there are problems with handling or restraint, the percentage of cattle vocalizing can reapidly rise to 25% (Bourquet et al, 2011), 23% (Grandin, 2001), and 57% (Hayes et al, 2015).

There is a trend in animal welfare science to develop ways to assess positive welfare states. The willingness of animals to approach a stockperson is one possible measures. Other measures of postivie states would be cognitive bias tests (Douglas et al, 2012) and the time that cattle spend chewing their cuds.


Anderson, V., Ilse, B., Stoltenow, C., Burr, D., Schroeder, T. and lngebretson, T. (2011). Winter management of feedlot cattle, North Dakota State University, Extension Service.

Arias, R.A. and Mader, T.L. (2011). Environmental factors affecting dairy water intake on cattle finished in feedlots. Journal of Animal Science. 89:245-251.

Barajas, R., Garces, P., and Zinn, R.A. (2013). Interactions of shade and feeding management on feedlot performance of crossbred steers during seasonal periods of high ambient temperatures. The Professional Animal Scientist. 6:645-651.

Brown-Brandi, T.M., Eigenberg, R.A., and Nienaber, J.A. (2013) Benefits of providing shade for different breeders. Transactions of ASABE. 56:1563-1570.

Caplan, G., Hothersall, B., Murrell, J.C., Nicol, C.J., Waterman-Pearson, A.E., Weeks, C.A., and Colborne, R.G. (2012) Kinematic gait analysis quantifies gait abnormalities with lameness in broiler chickens and identifies evolutionary gait differences. PLOS One DOS:10.1371/journal.ponc.0040800.

Coitzee, J.F. (2011) A review of pain assessment techniques and pharmacological approaches to pain relief after bovine castrations: Practical implications for cattle production within the United States. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 135:192-213.

DíEath, R.B., Roehe, R., Burner, S.P., lson, S.H., Farish, M., Jack, M.C., and Lawrence, A.B. (2009). Genetics and animal temperament: Aggressive behavior at mixing is genetically associated with response to handling in pigs. Animal. 3:1544-1554.

Dronen, S.I. (1988). Layout and Design Criteria for Livestock Windbreaks. In: Windbreak Technology, J.R. Brandle, D., Hintz, and J.W. Sturrock (Editors). Elsevier, The Netherlands, pp. 231-240.

Flowers, F.C., dePassille, A.M., Weary, D.M., Sanderson, D.J., and Rushen, J. (2007). Softer, higher friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. Journal Dairy Science. 90:1235-1242.

Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding Animal Welfare, The Science and its Cultural Context, Wiley Blackwell.

Fulwider, W.K., Grandin, T., Garrick, D.J., Engle, T.E., Lamm, W.D., Dalsted, N.L., and Rollin, B.E. (2007). Influence of freestall base on tarsal joint lesions and hygiene in dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science. 90:3559-3566.

Fraser, D., Duncan, I.J.H., Edwards, S.A., Grandin, T., Gregory, N.G., Gyyonnet, V., Hemsworth, P.H., Huertas, S.M., Huzzey, J.M., Mellor, D.J., Mensch, J.A, Spinka, M., and Wray, H.S. (2013). General principles for the welfare of animals in production systems: The underlying science and its Application. The Veterinary Journal. 198:19-27.

Galukande, E., Mulindwa, H., Wurzinger, M., Roschinsky, R., Mwai, A.O., and Solkner, J. (2013). Cross breeding cattle for milk production in the tropics: Achievements, challenges, and opportunities. Animal Genetic Resources. 52:111-125.

Grandin, T., and Deesing, M.J. (2013). Genetics and Animal Welfare, In: T. Grandin and M.J. Deesing (Editors) Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals (2" Edition). Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 435-472.

Green, L.E., Huxley, J.N., Banks, L., and Green, M. (2014). Temporal associations between low body condition Iameness and milk yield in a UK dairy herd. Preventative Veterinary Medicine. 113:63-71.

Greer, A.W. (2008). Trade-offs and benefits: Implications of promoting strong immunity to gastrointestinal parasites in sheep. Parasite immunology, 30:123-132.

Killbride, A.L., Gillman, C.E., Ossent, P., and Green, L.E. (2009). A cross sectional study of the prevalence of Iameness in finishing pigs gilts and pregnant cows, and associations with limb lesions, and floor types on commercial farms in England. Animal Welfare. 18:215-224.

Mader, T.L., Davis, M.S., and Brown-Brandt, T. (2006) Environmental factors influencing heat stress in feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 84:712-719.

OIE (2013). Article 7.1.4. General principles for the welfare of animals in livestock production systems, In Chapter 7.1 Introduction to the Recommendations for Animal Welfare. Terrestrial Animal Health Code, OIE, Paris, France.

Longeragan, G.H., Thomson, D.U. and Scott, H.M. (2014). Increased mortality in groups of cattle administered B-Adrenerger-agonists ractopomine hydrochlonde and Zilpaterol hydro chloride. PLUS ONE. e9117.doi:10.1371/jurnal/pone.0091177.

Phillips, C.J., Pines, M.K., Latter, M., Muller, T., Peterhick, J.C., Norman, S.T. and Gaughan, J.B. (2012). Physiological and behavioral responses of sheep to gaseous ammonia. Journal of Animal Science. 90:1562-1569.

Rodenbury, T.B. and Turner, S.P. (2012). The role of breeding and genetics in the welfare of farm animals. Animal Frontiers. 1:16-21.

Roy, K.S., and Collier, R.J. (2012) Regulation of acclimation to environmental stress, ln: R.J. Collier and J.L. Collier, Environmental Physiology of Livestock, Wiley Blackwell, pp.49-64.

Spencer, T.E. (2013). Early pregnancy: Concepts, challengers, and potential solutions. Animal Frontiers. 3:48-55.

Stafford, K.J. and Mellor, D.J. (2011). Addressing pain associated with disbudding and dehorning in cattle. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 135:226-231.

Sundblad, B.M., Larssen, B.M., Acevedo, F., Ernstgard, L., Johanson, G., Larssen, K., and Plamberg, L. (2004). Acute respiratory effects of exposure of ammonia to healthy persons. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environmental Health. 30:313-321.

Thatcher, W., Santoe, J.E.P., and Staples, C.R. (2011). Dietary manipulations to improve embryonic survival in cattle. Thereogenology. 76:1619-1631. Tactacan et al 2009, G.B. Tactacan, W. Goenter, N.J. Lewis, J.C. Rodriguez-Lecompte, and J.D. House. Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science. 88(2009) pp. 698-707.

Van der Weerd, H.A. and Day, J.E.L. (2009). A review of environmental enrichment for pigshoused in intensive housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 116:1-20.

Velarde, A., and Daimau, A. (2012) Animal welfare assessments at slaughter in Europe: Moving from inputs to outputs. Meat Science. 92:244ē251.

Von Keyserlingh, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., and Weary, D.M. (2012). Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies, lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high producing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 95:7399-7408.

Vordermeier, M., Amen, G., Berg, S., Bishop, R., Robertson, B.D., Aseffi, A., Hewinson, R.G., and Young, D.B. (2012). The influence of cattle breed on susceptibility to bovine tuberculosis in Ethiopia, Comparative immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 35:227-232.

Walsh, S.W., Williams, E.J., and Evans, A.C.O. (2011). A review of the causes of poor fertility in high milk producing dairy cows. Animal Reproduction Science. 123:127-138.

Wilkins, L.J., McKinstrey, J.L., Avery, N.C., Knowles, T.G., Brown, S.M. and Neal, C.J. (2011). Influence of housing system and design on bone strength and kcal fractures in laying hens. Veterinary Record. 169:414.

Wray, H.R., Main, D.C.J., Green, L.E. and Webster, A.J.F. (2003). Assessment of welfare of dairy cattle using animal based measurements, direct observations, and investigation of farm records. Veterinary Record. 153:197-202.

Yilmaz, O., Cengiz, F., Ertugrul, M., and Wilson, R.T. (2013). The domestic livestock resources of Turkey: Sheep breeders and crossbreeds and their conservation status. Animal Genetics Resources. 52:147-163.

References Updated February 2017

Bourquet, C., Deiss, V., Tannugi, C.C., and Terlouw, E.M. (2011). Behavioral and physiological reactions of cattle in a commercial abattoir. Meat Science. 88:158-168.

Chapinel, N., Weary, D.M., Collings, L., and von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. (2014). Lameness and hock injuries improve on farms participating in an assessment program. The Veterinary Journal. 202:646-648.

Coleman, G.J. and Hemsworth, P.H. (2014). Training to improve stockperson's beliefs and bahavior towards livestock enhances welfare and productivity. Review of Science and Technology. 33:131-137.

Cook, N.B., Hess, J.P., Fog, M.R., Bennett, R.L., and Brotzman, R.L. (2016) Management characteristics, lameness, and body injuries of dairy cattle housed in high performance diary herds in Wisconsin. Journal of Dairy Science. 99:5879-5891.

Curley, K.O., Pasqual, J.C., Welsh, T.H., and Randel, R.D. (2006). Technical Note: Exit velocity as a measure of cattle temperament is repeatable and associated with serum concentration of cortisol in Brahman bulls. Journal of Animal Science. 84:3100-3103.

DeJong, I.C., Gunnink, H., and van Harn, J. (2014). Wet litter not only induces footpad dermatitis but also reduces overall welfare technical performance and carcass yeild in broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. 23:51-58.

DeVries, M., Bukkers, E.A.M., Van Reenen, C,G., et al. (2015). Housing and management factors associated with indicators of dairy cow welfare. Preventative Veterninary Medicine. 110:80-92.

Dotzi, M.S., and Muchenje, V. (2011). Avoidance related behavioral variables and their relationship to milk yield in pasture based dairy cows. Applied Animlal Behavior Science. 133:11-17.

Espejo, L.A., Endres, M.I. and Salfer, J.A. (2006). Prevalence of lameness in high producing dairy cows in free stall barns in Minnesota. Journal of Dairy Science. 89:3052-3058.

Fukasawa, M., Kawahata, M., Higashiyama, Y., and Kawatsu, T. (2017). Relationship betwen the stockperson's attitudes and dairy productivity in Japan. Animal Science Journal. 88:394-400.

Fulwider, W.K., Grandin, T., Garrick, D.J., Engle, T.E., and Lamm, W.D. et al (2007). Influence of free stall base on tarsal joint lesions and hygiene in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 90:3559-3566.

Gaughan, J.B., and Mader, T.L. (2014). Body temperature and respiratory dynamics in unshaded beef cattle. International Journal of Biometeorology. 58:1443-1450.

Grandin, T. (1997). Assessment of stress during handling and transport. Journal of Animal Science.

Grandin, T. (1998). Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices at slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 212:36-39.

Grandin, T. (2001). Cattle vocalizationss are associated with handling and equipment problems in beef slaughter plants. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 7:191-201.

Grandin, T. (2010). Auditin animal welfare at slaughter plants. Meat Science. 86:56-65.

Grandin, T. (2012). Developing measures to audit animal welfare of cattle and pigs at slaughter. Animal Welfare. 21-351-356.

Grandin, T. and Shivley, C. (2015). How do farm animals react and perceive stressful situations such as handling, restraint, and tranport. Animals. 5(4):1233-1251.

Hayes, N.S., Schartz, C.A., and Maddock, R.J.. (2015). The relationship between pre-harvest stress and carcass characteristics of beef heifers qualified for kosher designation. Meat Science. 100:134-138.

Hemsworth, P.H., Coleman, G.J., Barnett, J.L., and Berg, S. (2000). Relationships between human animals interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science. 78:2821-2831.

Kauppinen, T.K. Vesela, K.M. and Valros, A. (2012). Farmer attitudes towards improvement in animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livestock Production Science. 143:142-150.

Simon, G.E., Hoar, B.R., and Tucker, C.B. (2016). Assessing Cow Calf Welfare, Part 2: Risk factors for beef cow health and behavior and stockperson handling. Journal of Animal Science. 94:3488-3500.

Vetters, M.D.D., Engle, T.E., and Grandin, T. (2013). Comparison of flight speed and exit score as measurements of temperament of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 91:374-381.

Wagner, D. (2016). 0067 Behavioral analysis and performance response of feedlot steers on concrete slats versus rubber slats. Journal of Animal Science. doi:10.2527/jam 2016-2017 (abstract).

Woiwode, R., Grandin, T., Kirch, B., and Patterson, J. (2016). Compliance of large feedyards in the norther high plains with beef quality assurance feedyard assessment. Professional Animal Scientist. 32:750-757.

Click here to return to the Homepage for more information on animal behavior, welfare, and care.