{"title":"Reducing noise associated with restraint box operation can facilitate animal handling in cattle abattoirs.","authors":"H Keshavarzi, J McNally, J Bishop, A Small","doi":"10.1080/00480169.2025.2542370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To evaluate in a range of abattoirs in Australia, the effect of a fully nylon-lined, noise-reducing restraint box on animal handling practices during pre-slaughter handling with a view to improving animal welfare by facilitating the movement of animals through the race into restraint for stunning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected from eight meat processors in Australia, with pre- and post-installation data available for four, and post-installation data available for all eight. Two separate analyses were conducted: one to compare pre- and post-installation data to evaluate the impact of the noise-reducing restraint box on animal handling practices, and another to investigate the variability between processors in the handling interventions required post-installation of the noise-reducing restraint box. Individual handling parameters (physical intervention/aid or noise, such as whistling or hitting the race to help animals move forward) were measured for each processor.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, there was a noticeable reduction in almost all handling parameters, with a few exceptions. For both physical and noise interventions, there was a significant interaction between treatment and processors (p < 0.01). Cattle received less handling aid post-installation compared to pre-installation (marginal mean (MM) number of events = 1.64 (95% CI = 1.47-1.84) <i>vs</i>. 3.14 (95% CI = 2.90-3.41); p < 0.01). However, handling noise was increased post-installation compared to pre-installation (MM = 1.08 (95% CI = 0.94-1.22) <i>vs</i>. 0.70 (95% CI = 0.61-0.81); p < 0.01). Thus, the use of the noise-reducing restraint box led to a reduction in the use of physical handling methods, but there was an increase in the use of other less stressful forms of coercion such as staff vocalisations. Post-installation analysis showed that handling interventions (aid and noise) varied significantly among processors (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical relevance: </strong>The noise-reducing restraint box reduced the need for physical coercion, potentially improving animal movement through the race and offering improvements in production efficiency, animal welfare and staff morale. However, variation between processors indicates that there are other factors influencing system flow and animal welfare.</p>","PeriodicalId":19322,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand veterinary journal","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Zealand veterinary journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2025.2542370","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: To evaluate in a range of abattoirs in Australia, the effect of a fully nylon-lined, noise-reducing restraint box on animal handling practices during pre-slaughter handling with a view to improving animal welfare by facilitating the movement of animals through the race into restraint for stunning.
Methods: Data were collected from eight meat processors in Australia, with pre- and post-installation data available for four, and post-installation data available for all eight. Two separate analyses were conducted: one to compare pre- and post-installation data to evaluate the impact of the noise-reducing restraint box on animal handling practices, and another to investigate the variability between processors in the handling interventions required post-installation of the noise-reducing restraint box. Individual handling parameters (physical intervention/aid or noise, such as whistling or hitting the race to help animals move forward) were measured for each processor.
Results: Overall, there was a noticeable reduction in almost all handling parameters, with a few exceptions. For both physical and noise interventions, there was a significant interaction between treatment and processors (p < 0.01). Cattle received less handling aid post-installation compared to pre-installation (marginal mean (MM) number of events = 1.64 (95% CI = 1.47-1.84) vs. 3.14 (95% CI = 2.90-3.41); p < 0.01). However, handling noise was increased post-installation compared to pre-installation (MM = 1.08 (95% CI = 0.94-1.22) vs. 0.70 (95% CI = 0.61-0.81); p < 0.01). Thus, the use of the noise-reducing restraint box led to a reduction in the use of physical handling methods, but there was an increase in the use of other less stressful forms of coercion such as staff vocalisations. Post-installation analysis showed that handling interventions (aid and noise) varied significantly among processors (p < 0.05).
Conclusions and clinical relevance: The noise-reducing restraint box reduced the need for physical coercion, potentially improving animal movement through the race and offering improvements in production efficiency, animal welfare and staff morale. However, variation between processors indicates that there are other factors influencing system flow and animal welfare.
期刊介绍:
The New Zealand Veterinary Journal (NZVJ) is an international journal publishing high quality peer-reviewed articles covering all aspects of veterinary science, including clinical practice, animal welfare and animal health.
The NZVJ publishes original research findings, clinical communications (including novel case reports and case series), rapid communications, correspondence and review articles, originating from New Zealand and internationally.
Topics should be relevant to, but not limited to, New Zealand veterinary and animal science communities, and include the disciplines of infectious disease, medicine, surgery and the health, management and welfare of production and companion animals, horses and New Zealand wildlife.
All submissions are expected to meet the highest ethical and welfare standards, as detailed in the Journal’s instructions for authors.