Services on Demand
Journal
Article
Indicators
-
Cited by SciELO
-
Access statistics
Related links
-
Similars in SciELO
Share
Revista mexicana de ciencias pecuarias
On-line version ISSN 2448-6698Print version ISSN 2007-1124
Rev. mex. de cienc. pecuarias vol.11 n.2 Mérida Apr./Jun. 2020 Epub Oct 23, 2020
https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v11i2.4767
Review
Implications, trends, and prospects for long-distance transport in cattle. Review
a Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia. Coyoacán, Ciudad de México, México.
b Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. Unidad Lerma. Departamento de Ciencias de la Alimentación. Estado de México, México.
The growth of international trade and population has increased the demand for animal protein in developing and emerging countries, which has led to a considerable increase in the number of animals bred, transported, and processed worldwide. As a result, transport distance and duration have increased, which has driven specific improvements in livestock infrastructures, such as trucks with greater autonomy and load capacity, adapted to the biological needs of animals; reduction of operating costs; and liberalization of animal health restrictions that facilitate international trade. In this review, was conduct an integrated, detailed, and updated analysis of long-distance transport. Considering that the current trend is to increase transport duration, logistical scales, and mixed transportation, it is necessary to develop evaluation and decision-making systems with tools and protocols that minimize the biological cost in cattle.
Key words Animal welfare; Long-distance transport; Bos indicus; Bos taurus; Meat quality
El creciente comercio internacional, el crecimiento poblacional y su consecuente demanda de proteínas de origen animal en los países en vías de desarrollo y emergentes, han dado lugar a un considerable aumento en el número de animales criados, transportados y procesados en todo el mundo. Esto ha derivado en un aumento de la distancia recorrida y el tiempo de viaje, estimulando ciertas mejoras en la infraestructura ganadera; camiones con mayor autonomía; capacidad de carga y adaptados a las necesidades biológicas de los animales; reducción de costos de operación; y liberalización de restricciones zoosanitarias que facilitan el comercio internacional. La presente revisión hace un análisis pormenorizado y actualizado del transporte de larga distancia con una visión de conjunto. Si se toma en cuenta que la tendencia actual es aumentar el tiempo del transporte, escalas logísticas y transportes mixtos, es necesario desarrollar sistemas de evaluación y toma de decisiones con herramientas y protocolos que minimicen el coste biológico en el ganado bovino.
Palabras clave Bienestar animal; Transportes larga distancia; Bos indicus; Bos taurus; Calidad de carne
Introduction
Transport is an inevitable stage in the life of a production animal with various purposes, such as breeding, fattening, sale, slaughter, reproduction, and entertainment1. Several studies indicate that transport is a strange, invasive, aversive, and very physically demanding procedure for animals2; including unfamiliar stimuli such as sound, visual, and olfactory cues; social mix; vibration; temperature variations; risk of injury; spatial restriction; fasting, and limited access to water3. The direct effect of transport has implications for animal welfare and health, as well as for meat quality4. Currently, the growing interest in food safety and quality in meat production chains seeks to incorporate sustainable production commitments and promote animal welfare in the search for a new concept of quality5,6. The modern globalization and the increasing demand for animal protein have considerably increased the number of animals bred, transported, and processed for slaughter worldwide7. The development of more complete and efficient supply chains facilitates international trade, thanks to improvements in livestock infrastructure, such as more autonomous trucks and specialized designs, reduction of operating costs, and liberalization of animal health restrictions8. In this context, long-distance transport is a strategic element of the livestock industry.
In some countries, due to climatic conditions, internal production is limited, and the importation of live cattle is necessary to supply the meat markets. In others, the breeding and fattening centers are distant from each other, due to feed availability and climatic conditions; here animals are born and bred in grazing zones, due to the availability of low-cost forage, and are sent for completion to intensive fattening centers. Other countries prefer to import live cattle since, for religious reasons, animals must be alive at the time of Kosher or Halal slaughter9,10. Other cross-border livestock flows take place due to the attraction of added value, such as the certification offered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through the labeling of “improved beef,” which promotes the export of live cattle from Canada for slaughter in the United States of America (USA), with very long journeys resulting in high losses11. Additionally, the specialization by species of many slaughterhouses located at strategic points near the marketing channels has increased the travel distance from the farm to these slaughterhouses12.
It is crucial to point out the economic importance of live animal exportation, which provides many direct and indirect jobs in the transport, logistics, and storage sectors. However, it is highly likely that large-scale regional planning would allow for the redistribution of slaughter centers close to production sites, in such a way that transport duration would be reduced, in addition to seeking the gradual replacement of the export of live cattle to meat export13. In Latin America, due to the geography, commercial terms, and distribution of livestock production centers, long-distance transport is the rule rather than the exception. Regulations in these countries tend to be much laxer in terms of distance compared to European regulations. This review evaluates long-distance transport of cattle from the perspective of different countries with very particular situations given by different factors such as the geographical location of the country; pre-transport processes; vehicle design, loading density, and microenvironment; as well as current research on the risks associated with the driver and the effects that each of these factors may have on the beef chain.
Typology of long-distance transport
Long-distance transport includes repopulation, living, and slaughter transport. Historically, cattle for immediate slaughter has dominated the trade, but in the new century, there has been a rapid growth in the number of “half fattened” cattle for further value-adding before slaughter through fattening and finishing, including males in the dairy sector. Therefore, it is increasingly common to transport cattle several times during their lives14, estimating 296 million head of beef cattle transported worldwide during 2005, some of them transported more than once11. The main transport reasons include sale for herd repopulation, change of owner, search for cheaper or more abundant sources of supply (pasture and water), breeding or replacement of livestock for reproduction, the supply of intensive fattening units, auctions, livestock shows and fairs1. The inappropriate grouping and management of livestock, primarily those extracted from extensive systems, results in animals with high levels of stress at the beginning of transport. During prolonged groupings, it is advisable to give the animals time to recover in the pre-loading pens. It is important to emphasize that animals with little human contact or aggressive temperament will be more susceptible to stress and have a higher chance of injuring handlers due to an excessive response or fear-induced aggression9,15. Although there are not enough data, it has been proposed that previous experience may affect the fear response of animals and may be responsible for the variable results reported in transport studies15. However, other studies have shown that more docile cattle lose less weight during transport and tend to recover faster once they continue with their production cycle16.
In the past, cattle transport for reproductive purposes was required for breeding; however, with new biotechnologies, this transport became impractical. The starting point was artificial insemination in domestic species, which originated in 1779, while embryo transfer was reported as another successful technique in 189017, and in 1973, in vitro fertilization18. Worldwide, more than 750,000 embryos are produced annually from superovulated donors, and more than 450,000 embryos are produced using in vitro techniques17. Although these technologies were developed for breeding purposes, the number of livestock transported for reproductive purposes must have decreased considerably from the 18th century, when artificial insemination began. Moreover, exhibitions, fairs, and actions continue to require the physical presence of livestock, which demands constant transport. At the international level, there are efforts to eliminate this practice using the internet or television-based systems19, an example of this are auctions in Europe, the USA, and recently in Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia; in these auctions, animal transport only occurs once you have a secured buyer. However, this field has not yet been studied, and the available information is scarce, so it represents an important area of study as part of the current livestock industry, where the use of technology facilitates the commercialization of livestock. There is a tendency to decrease or disappear unnecessary animal handling.
Repopulation transport includes movements between countries, between farms of the same country, or within the same property20. For example, Mexico is the largest trading partner of the USA introducing live animals, the trade consists of animals with a minimum of blood from zebu breeds to supply fattening units or feedlots from that country21. Moreover, the supply and domestic consumption of Mexico depends on the cattle from the southeast tropical and subtropical regions and Central American countries22, this supply consists of the long-distance transport of animals, of which there is still little information. Further research in repopulation transport, especially in animal health and welfare repercussions is required; this will provide the competent authorities with the background information required to establish rules and regulations on the conditions before, during, and after transport, in addition to considering aspects such as the ideal state of an animal to be transported, maximum transport duration, and water and food restriction depending on the region23.
International regulatory trends
Livestock transport is an important concern of governments, animal protection organizations, and consumers in general, due to the perception of an absence of welfare in this link of the chain, as well as the possible consequences on the quality and product safety24. A bad image during transport or accident management creates a negative perception of the transport activities25. There are well-intentioned regulations with possible negative consequences for animals; regulations on cattle transport do not always consider fundamental aspects for their welfare26. For example, under Canadian regulation, livestock can be deprived of water for up to 57 h. Animals may also be deprived of food for up to 81 h during transport to a federal slaughterhouse11.
The European Community has the most demanding legislation in the world regarding the transport of cattle in terms of animal welfare; it establishes a maximum duration of 14 hours of travel, followed by an hour of rest to drink water, being able to continue with another 14 h travel. This sequence can be repeated when the animals have been unloaded, fed, provided with water, and rested for at least 24 h27,28. Despite the latter, more than a million citizens of the European Community requested, demanded, a general transport duration limit of 8 h. The European Parliament adopted a statement that upholds an 8-hour limit for cattle transport3. The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) developed guidelines for the welfare of livestock during transport; however, the signatory countries and the livestock export sector are not obliged to comply with them29. With very opposite scenarios, countries like South Africa, Kenya, and some European countries have well-developed legislation on the welfare and transport of livestock. In contrast, Central and South American countries have a weak legislative framework, with a low level of compliance where knowledge of the legislation is absent, even among stakeholders30.
Stress factors associated with long-distance transport
Factors associated with the pre-transport process
Transport-related activities begin with the grouping of animals; in some countries, the grouping can begin 48 hours before loading, since livestock is dispersed over large territorial extensions. The number and duration of various handling practices before loading; such as mixing of animals, food and water deprivation; represent a challenge that predisposes animals to dehydration and energy expenditure31.
Animals in detrimental conditions lack the same capacity to withstand long-distance transport. There are guidelines, similar to those used in Europe, to determine if an animal is fit for transport. An animal can travel if: it walks normally, carrying its weight evenly in its four legs; it is healthy, without visible disease or injury that could harm it during transport; it can stay with the group during loading and unloading; it has at least one functional eye, and it is not on late pregnancy15. Loading is more stressful for animals than the unloading process; however, the physical integrity risks of the animal are similar in both cases32. Animal loading, as well as the early stages of transport, cause high levels of stress; after this period, animals can adapt to transport conditions; however, after 12 hours, animals get tired and compromise their health, which is why transport should be interrupted33,34. Stressors will initiate a series of reactions in the organism, with the activation of the sympathetic-adrenomedullary system and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, causing an increase in the levels of catecholamines and glucocorticoids35, in addition to marked effects on the immune system, clearly visible in animals transported for repopulation purposes. Other repercussions can manifest several weeks after travel, such as lack of growth, low weight gain, and mortality, especially in young or recently weaned animals36.
Most research on the effects of transport and its regulations has focused on transport duration; for example, in Canada, the maximum transport time is 52 hours before arriving at destination; in the USA transport should not take longer than 28 hours, and in the European Union the maximum transport time is 30 hours. However, few studies have focused on the total time in which animals are confined in vehicles, waiting before departure, transport time, type of road, number and duration of stops, waiting for unloading, among others37,38. Factors such as the cost of transportation; truck specifications and design; loading density, vibrations, and movement; microclimate conditions; climatic and geographic conditions; route planning; factors associated with the driver and risk of accidents must be considered as a whole within transport logistics8.
Transport design
Livestock transport vehicles must be designed, built, and maintained in order to protect the animals from inclement weather, extreme temperatures, adverse changes in climatic conditions, and injury. Overall, there are four types of specialized vehicles: small trucks (≤3 t), individual units (>13 m long), semitrailers, and double semitrailers3. For a vehicle to guarantee greater animal comfort during transport, it is recommended to include drinking and ventilation systems, species-customized ramps, roof, non-slip flooring, lateral walls that prevent any part of the animal from leaving the truck, removable partitions to separate smaller and easier to handle groups, lateral inspection doors, and temperature control39. However, the design of the truck and its impact on welfare has been poorly studied40. In Central and South America, trucks can be articulated or not, generally without a roof, with metal or wooden structures13. In Latin American countries, there are laws that try to protect animals by avoiding animal cruelty and unnecessary suffering. There is also legislation on the transport of animals for consumption in most countries. However, it deals mainly with sanitary and public health requirements (vehicle cleaning, antemortem animal health inspection, and postmortem meat inspection), instead of animal welfare, such as the case of Paraguay, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, Venezuela, and Uruguay13. In Brazil, there is no specific legislation regulating the transport of farm animals, although most of the government agencies and large slaughterhouse companies are aware of the OIE recommendations. In Mexico, the Official Mexican Standard “NOM-051-ZOO-1995 for Humane practices in animal transport” covers different animal species, but is not up-to-date and has weak and not very specific stipulations in terms of transport design. In North America, including Mexico, livestock is generally transported in pot-belly trailer trucks41; these vehicles have an aluminum cover and five compartments: compartment 1 (nose), compartment 2 (belly), compartment 3 (back), compartment 4 (deck), and compartment 5 (doghouse)42. In Europe, single or semitrailer trucks are the most common43. The choice of vehicle will generally depend on the type and quantity of livestock, the specific demands of the market, the duration of transport, and the geographical region3.
Loading density
From an economic point of view, loading density can increase or decrease operating costs per unit44. The space required per animal during transport can be represented in three ways: (m2/100 kg), (kg/m2), and by the amount of surface used by each one (m2/animal). Other studies45 concluded that the Space Allowance (SA=m2/animal), and an allometric coefficient that includes live weight of the animal (k=ED/PV0.6667), was a better indicator of available space for comparisons between studies in homogeneous weight batches. The area per animal is proportional to its surface area; a 400 kg cow should be transported in an area of 1.16 m2(45.
Drivers or unit operators must be careful about the space availability in their trucks and know the characteristics of the species to be transported (horned or hornless; waste, fattening, dairy, recently weaned animals, among others); this, together with climate limitations, allows defining or altering the recommended loading density46. When the loading density is of fewer animals per square meter, animals have more room to lie down, but if the way of driving or the road conditions are poor, it will be easier for the animals to lose their balance47. A study reported that with a density of 170 kg/m2 (below the 360 kg/m2 recommended by the Farm Animal Welfare Council of the USDA), animals tend to lie down during transport48. Eldridge and Winfield49examined the effects of different densities on long-distance transport, and although there were no effects in the ultimate pH (pHu) in beef, the incidence of bruises was higher with the lower and higher densities.
Vibration, movement, and livestock exhaustion
During transport, animals are exposed to vertical, lateral, and horizontal vibrations. Unpaved roads or roads with strong wind currents transmit a more significant amount of vibrations, animal’s sensitivity increases after long standing periods50, causing fatigue and displacement of their gravity center, which leads to falls and injuries51. Additionally, animals make a more considerable effort seeking for a place to lean on the truck during braking52. Long-distance transport is so physiologically demanding that it tends to affect the neutrophil/lymphocyte (N/L) ratio, which increases the probability of opportunistic infections53. Gebresenbet et al50placed vibration sensors in a truck with an air suspension system and observed that the highest vibration level on animals was 2.27 ± 0.33 m/s2 when driving in gravel roads at 70 km/h. Horizontal and lateral vibrations were lower on animals located perpendicular to the road direction. Avoiding rough, gravel, or dirt roads can reduce the exposure to vibrations, as well as using a truck that is serviced and operated by trained drivers.
The pre-transport stages produce additional energy expenditure in order to meet transport demands; however, the long periods of fasting to which the animals are subjected will have negative effects on the muscle glycogen concentration, leading to a high pHu, which will result in Dark, Firm, and Dry (DFD) meat34,54,55. Recent reports describe the Fatigue Cattle Syndrome (FCS), animals that develop mobility problems shortly after reaching a slaughterhouse, similar to that reported in pigs. Cattle present clinical signs of tachypnea and respiratory distress, animals may also present lameness, stiff gait, or supine position in the absence of evidence indicating injury or illness, in addition to elevated concentrations of lactate and creatine kinase (CK)56.
Temperature, microclimate, and ventilation
Theoretical estimates indicate that in a typical trailer with a recommended density for 500 kg cattle, the heat produced inside would be 13,400 watts, which is why a ventilation system is required4. There are two ventilation systems: passive ventilation (openings) and active ventilation (fans). Passive ventilation is given by openings throughout the truck and depends on the movement and speed of the truck57. Active ventilation is controlled by sensors and uses extractor fans in air inlets and outlets7.
The microclimate inside the truck (temperature, relative humidity, and temperature and humidity index) is affected by the macroclimate, loading density, and airflow, as well as by animal respiration, transpiration, and secretions. Microclimate has a broad and potential impact on animal welfare, especially in adverse environmental conditions. Long-distance transport increases the probability of exposing animals to different climatic regions58. For example, during the transport between Canada and the USA, temperature ranges from -42 to 45 °C37. In extreme climatic conditions, the temperature inside the truck varies greatly, so the driver must be careful to open or close the ventilation openings. In warm climates, ventilation is hampered by air density, and the use of temperature and humidity recording devices is recommended so that the driver can make decisions during transport36. The driver must also avoid stopping the truck for long periods since the internal temperature increases rapidly due to the external temperature, lack of ventilation, and the temperature emitted by the cattle. Under these temperature conditions, in trips longer than a day, cattle suffer an important weight loss59. In cold climates, the incidence of post-transport morbidity and in-transit injuries caused by the freezing of sensitive body parts may increase46. In these climates, straw bedding is recommended to improve animal comfort and to maintain a warmer temperature. High humidity conditions should be avoided during cold or hot climates since it has detrimental effects on the thermoregulatory capacity of animals60,61. Depending on the increase in body temperature, the upper critical point for sheep and cattle is around 24-26 °C. Most mammals die when body temperature reaches 42-45 °C, which is above the normal body temperature by about 3 to 6 °C62. The accumulation of ammonia represents a risk in high densities and poor ventilation conditions since it correlates with temperature and air humidity62.
Risk factors associated with the driver
The driver’s ability to control the truck affects the quality of driving. Acceleration, braking, cornering, and driving techniques affect the ability of animals to maintain a stable posture, increasing excitability, reactivity, and injury63. Moreover, the leading causes of road accidents during livestock transport in Spain, the USA, and Mexico are related to fatigue and poor decision-making by the driver, which results from long working hours, poor route design, and changes in sleep cycles25. An analysis of articulated truck failures and accidents identified that the most common form of driver-associated accidents is related to an error in decision-making while driving64. For example, the number of accidents during livestock transport in Mexico is unknown; drivers in this country frequently travel at high speeds, which affects the ability of the driver to deal with truck control in curves and other obstacles that may arise on the road11.
Other factors included the age of the driver, due to the combination of experience and good health, the ideal age to drive trucks is between 28 and 54 yr old, drivers under the age of 27 obtained higher accident/fatality ranges, which increases again in drivers older than 63 yr65. Alcohol consumption, fatigue, and chronic health problems such as being overweight or obese, are other factors associated with the driver66,67. In a study performed in Spain, most accidents involved pig (57 %), cattle (30 %), poultry (8 %), and sheep (5 %) transport25; while in another study performed in the USA and Canada, Woods and Grandin68 found that cattle (56 %) and pigs (27 %) were the most affected species. Of these accidents, 59 % occurred between 2400 and 0900 h, most of them were overturns, similar to what was observed in a study carried out in Mexico, where overturns were the most common type of accident (58.8 %) in long-distance transport of cattle67; these were retrospective studies based on the analysis of newspaper reports, news, and driver surveys67,68. In this type of accident, the surviving animals are usually stunned and disoriented; they can also suffer pain, states of fear and anxiety, which complicates their handling and increases the risk of secondary accidents3.
Therefore, driver training should be a priority in the logistics chain, covering aspects of animal behavior and welfare, as well as factors related to the mechanical operation of their trucks46. The livestock industry must take action to reduce fatigue and, therefore, the risk of accidents, which results in the loss of human and animal lives, besides significant economic losses in the logistics chain of animal transport. The only effective strategy to prevent fatigue accumulation is an ergonomic interaction of the vehicle design, besides ensuring that drivers consistently get good quality and adequate sleep66.
Routes and geography
Geographic conditions have a strong influence on livestock production systems and on the opportunities to commercialize it. In some cases, the geographic location of a country allows or hinders international exchanges and requires a variety of different types of transport69. In countries like Chile, it is not possible to reduce livestock transport duration due to its unique geography and few adequate routes, with transport durations of up to 63 h36. Brazil is another example, with long transport periods due to its territorial extension6 and the global trend of reduction and specialization of slaughterhouses12. Brazil’s road network system is over 1.6 million km long, and transport conditions vary depending on geographic characteristics. Roads are usually unpaved and in poor condition, a situation that worsens especially in the rainy season, increasing transport duration, the number of broken trucks, broken bridges, and road accidents13.
Impacts on welfare and productivity
The effect of long-duration transport on livestock is an important economic and animal health issue. This type of transport, as occurs in the Chilean Patagonia, causes significant loss of body weight36, prolonging the physical recovery of livestock at the final destination.
Live weight loss, mobility, and mortality
Live weight loss in cattle is probably the most significant economic effect of transport. In a study with a group of heifers transported 518 km (8 h), with a maximum ambient temperature of 32.2 °C, live weight decreased by 6 % after transport48. Weight loss is the most notorious effect at first, but a primary factor is the recovery time elapsed before starting to generate weight gain in animals transferred to fattening centers. Loerch and Fluharty70 reported that a feed and water deprivation period above 72 h in addition to an eight-hour transport reduces the total ruminal protozoa. Moreover, animals subjected to long-distance transport can suffer dehydration, especially in warm-dry or very cold climates, when the airflow inside the truck is high. Providing small amounts of nutrients or electrolytes with correct tonicity immediately before and after transport, reduces tissue dehydration and the catabolism of muscle proteins, glycogen, and lipids, as well as reducing acid-base and electrolyte imbalances71.
Another concern is the risk of disease or death due to the variable climatic conditions and toxin exposure, among other factors5. During transport, animals can get sick or die; these effects can occur several weeks after arriving at the destination. One of the most important diseases in cattle from intensive systems is the bovine respiratory disease. This disease usually affects young cattle, although it also increases due to the transport process to fattening units. In the USA, the bovine respiratory disease affects 14.4 % of the cattle that enter the fattening units72. The immune response of transported cattle is usually suppressed by the high concentrations of cortisol associated with stress73, so the disease usually manifests days or weeks after arrival.
The injuries suffered during transport must be specially cared for; it is crucial to attend open wounds and keep in observation the animals that present difficulties in moving. Injured animals should receive anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving treatments to facilitate their recovery. The Fatigue Cattle Syndrome should be considered in the case of animals with mobility problems immediately after transport56; this syndrome is accentuated in Bos indicus cattle, which is more temperamental and tends to lie down and "surrender" in trucks with high populations1, presenting greater difficulty in adapting to confinement conditions. However, there is little information about this syndrome, and studies do not show consistent information, further information is needed. Transport mortality is a reflection of a severe welfare problem; this includes animals dead on arrival (DOA) and animals without apparent injuries (Non-ambulatory, non injured - NANI) that die at a later time74. Mortality records during transport in commercial and experimental conditions have shown that mortality increases with high or very low temperatures, long-distance transport, or in the transport of very young animals75,76. Transport mortality is variable and depends on different factors. Animals that lose 10 % of their body weight during transport are more likely to die or become non-ambulatory animals. Mortality also increases with lower space availability in the transport vehicle37,38.
Bruising
Injuries and damage to the carcass caused by improper transport practices, or long-distance transport will affect the severity of bruising and, therefore, the quality of the carcass and meat. Based on the current market requirements, animal transport must avoid this type of damage. A carcass with less damage suggests better welfare conditions and, therefore, a higher ethical quality of the product. In the canal, bruising can be associated with different factors. During an experiment, the amount of bruising was higher in females than in males; also, the most severe injuries were found in old cows and not in heifers, which could be because most of these cows have a lower body condition (less muscle and subcutaneous fat). In this study, transport-related bruises were observed in a “dark red” color and therefore considered to be less than or equal to 24 h in age, bruises were found on the sides, around the hip bones (ischial tuberosity), probably due to the contact that the cattle have with the sidewalls of the vehicle; bruising increased with higher animal densities31.
In males, the mating behavior and headbutts, which are common behaviors in beef cattle, are related to an increase in bruising, especially in holding pens77; in this study, the appearance of this behavior could not be related to bruising.
Strategies to reduce stress on long-distance transport
The production and transport of live cattle will continue to be stimulated by the growing human population78, but with the integration of activities within the logistics chain, it would be possible to obtain the following advantages: 1) distance and time reduction through route optimization; 2) improve animal welfare; 3) expand the market area for producers; 4) decrease operating costs and increase competitiveness; 5) reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions; 6) improve traceability for authorities and consumers; 7) narrow the participation between producers, distributors, merchants, and consumers; 8) promote the exchange of knowledge, experience, and information79. Important members of the industry have begun to introduce their own policies to reduce stress and improve the welfare conditions of animals for slaughter.
Pharmacology applied to transport
Several studies have allowed the implementation of strategies that improve the conditions of animals during long-distance transport. Different studies recommend the use of some ingredients and drugs such as dexamethasone to support the treatment of some problems associated with transport34,80. There is evidence that Mg can reduce the effects of pre-slaughter stress and improve the quality of meat because it suppresses neuromuscular stimulation81 and, when added to the diet, results in the attenuation of the secretion of glucocorticoids and catecholamines82. Tryptophan (Trp) is the precursor of serotonin, which regulates numerous biological functions, including temperature, pain sensitivity; feeding, sexual, and aggressive behavior83; although its effects during transport have not been studied, preparations containing tryptophan are marketed worldwide as calming agents to treat excitable horses84.
It is important to administrate a fluid and electrolyte therapy during and after transport1, a study demonstrated that providing cattle with electrolytes before slaughter improves carcass yield, without affecting the pHu, color, or water holding capacity85; electrolytes also reduce dehydration and weight loss associated with transport86. Moreover, allostatic modulators (AM), which contain substances such as ascorbic acid, acetoxybenzoic acid, sodium chloride, and potassium chloride, have been shown to mitigate the stress caused by the capture and handling of cattle during transport. A diet supplemented with 10 g of an AM, fed before slaughter for 30 d, showed anti-inflammatory properties, decreased stress levels determined by physiological parameters, and increased meat color stability at 24 and 28 d post-mortem87.
Conclusions
Distance in transport is a strategic component of the global food and agriculture, and meat production economy. However, it is necessary to develop guidelines and technologies in terms of handling, operation, and logistics aimed to improve the welfare and health conditions of cattle. The impact of stress on biological functions, behavior, and suffering of animals has been underestimated in the past. Nowadays, it is important to integrate animal welfare into a broad concept of quality in animal production. Therefore, it is essential to invest in improvements aimed to establish logistics programs that have animal welfare as the axis of an operational quality program, in addition to legislation that regulates long-distance travel based on scientific evidence, and vehicle designs that adjust to different climatic conditions, as well as to the characteristics and behavior of each species.
Acknowledgments
To the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT), for the financing of project number 259327, within the Call for Basic Scientific Research of 2015.
REFERENCES
1. Smith GC, Grandin T, Friend TH, Lay D, Swanson JC. Effect of transport on meat quality and animal welfare of pigs, sheep, horses, deer and poultry, 2004; Effect of transport on meat quality and animal welfare of pigs, sheep, horses, deer and poultry, 2004; http://www.grandin.com/behaviour/effect.of.transport.html . Accessed Oct 16, 2016. [ Links ]
2. Lambooij E, Vander Werf JTN, Reimer HGM, Hindle VA. Compartment height in cattle transport vehicles. Livestock Sci 2012;(148):87-94. [ Links ]
3. Miranda-de la Lama GC, Villarroel M, María GA. Livestock transport from the perspective of the pre-slaughter logistic chain: a review. Meat Sci 2014;(98):9-20. [ Links ]
4. Kettlewell PJ, Hoxey RP, Hampson CJ, Green NR, Veale BM, Mitchell MA. Design and Operation of a Prototype Mechanical Ventilation System for Livestock Transport Vehicles. J Agric Engng Res 2001;(79):429-439. [ Links ]
5. Speer NC, Slack G, Troyer E. Economic factors associated with livestock transportation. J Anim Sci 2001;(79): E166-E170. [ Links ]
6. Paranhos da Costa MJR, Huertas SM, Gallo C, Dalla Costa OA. Strategies to promote farm animal welfare in Latin America and their effects on carcass and meat quality traits. Meat Sci 2012;(92):221-226. [ Links ]
7. Miranda-de la Lama GC. Transporte y logística pre-sacrificio: principios y tendencias en bienestar animal y su relación con la calidad de la carne. Vet Méx 2013;(44):31-56. [ Links ]
8. Soysal M, Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Van del Vors JGAJ. Modelling food logistics networks with emission considerations: The case of an international beef supply chain. Int J Production Economics 2014;(152):57-70. [ Links ]
9. Aghwan ZA, Bello AU, Abubakar AA, Imlan JC, Sazili AQ. Efficient halal bleeding, animal handling, and welfare: A holistic approach for meat quality. Meat Sci 2016;(121):420-428. [ Links ]
10. Fuseini A, Wotton SB, Hadley PJ, Knowles TG. The perception and acceptability of pre-slaughter and post-slaughter stunning for Halal production: The views of UK Islamic scholars and Halal consumers. Meat Sci 2017;(123):143-150. [ Links ]
11. Engebretson M. Appleby MC, Cussen VA, Garcés L, Lambert LA, Turner J. Long distance transport and welfare of farm animals. Wallingford, UK, CABI 2008;218-260. [ Links ]
12. Ljungberg D, Gebresenbet G, Aradom S. Logistics chain of animal transport and slaughterhouse operations. Biosystems Engineering 2007;(96):267-277. [ Links ]
13. Gallo CB, Tadich TA. Appleby MC , Cussen VA, Garcés L, Lambert LA, Turner J. Long distance transport and welfare of farm animals. Wallingford, UK, CABI; 2008. [ Links ]
14. Van Donkersgoed J, Jewison G, Bygrove S, Gillis K, Malchow D, McLeod G. Canadian beef quality audit 1998-99. Canadian Vet J 2001;(42):121-126. [ Links ]
15. Fisher DA, Colditz GI, Lee C, Ferguson MD. The influence of land transport on animal welfare in extensive farming systems. J Vet Behavior 2009;(4):157-162 [ Links ]
16. Colditz IG, Watson DL, Kilgour R, Ferguson DM, Prideaux C, Ruby J, Kirkland PD, Sullivan K. Impact of animal health and welfare research within the CRC for cattle and beef quality on Australian beef production. Aust J Exp Agric 2006;(46):233-244. [ Links ]
17. Mapletoft RJ. History and perspectives on bovine embryo transfer. Anim Reprod 2013;10:168-173. [ Links ]
18. Trounson A. Development of in vitro fertilization in Australia. Fert Steril 2018;110:19-24. [ Links ]
19. Zimmerman LC, Schroeder TC, Dhuyvetter KC, Olson KC, Stokka GL, Seeger JT, Grotelueschen DM. The effect of value-added management on calf prices at superior livestock auction video markets. J Agr Resour Econom 2012;128-143. [ Links ]
20. Fisher MW, Jones BS. Appleby MC , Cussen VA, Garcés L, Lambert LA, Turner J. Long distance transport and welfare of farm animals. Australia and New Zealand: Wallingford, UK, CABI; 2009:324-350. [ Links ]
21. Ramírez-Romero R, Ramírez-Hernández C, García-Márquez LJ, Macedo-Barragán RJ, Martínez-Burnes J, López-Mayagoitia A. Bovine diseases causing neurological signs and death in Mexican feedlots. Trop Anim Health Prod 2014;(46):823-829. [ Links ]
22. Peel DS, Mathews Jr. KH, Johnson RJ. Trade, the expanding Mexican beef industry, and feedlot and stocker cattle production in Mexico. LDP-M-206-01. Economic Res Serv, USDA. 2011. [ Links ]
23. Cox JH, Lennkh S. Chapter 3: Keeping of animals/care of animals. In: Model animal welfare Act - A comprehensive framework law-. Boston, USA, World Animal Net. 2016:94-105. [ Links ]
24. Cruz-Monterrosa GR, Reséndiz-Cruz V, Rayas-Amor AA, López M, Miranda-de la Lama GM. Bruises in beef cattle at slaughter in Mexico: implications on quality, safety and shelf life of the meat. Trop Anim Health Prod 2016; doi 10.1007/s11250-016-1173-8. [ Links ]
25. Miranda-de la Lama GC, Sepulveda WS, Villarroel M, María GA. Livestock vehicle accidents in Spain: causes, consequences, and effects on animal welfare. J Appl Anim Welfare Sci 2011;(14):109-123. [ Links ]
26. Appleby MC.Science of Animal Welfare . Appleby MC , Cussen VA , Garcés L , Lambert LA , Turner J . Long distance transport and welfare of farm animals. Wallingford, UK, CABI; 2008:1-14. [ Links ]
27. Diario Oficial de la Comunidad Europea (DOCE). Reglamento CE Nº 1/2005 del Consejo de 22 de diciembre de 2004 relativo a la protección de los animales durante el transporte y las operaciones conexas por el que se modifican las directivas 64/432/CEE y 93/119/CE y el reglamento (CE) nº 1255/97. Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea L3/1-L3/44 (5 enero, 2005). [ Links ]
28. Cussen VA. Enforcement of transport regulations: the EU as case study. Appleby MC, et al editors. Long distance transport and welfare of farm animals. Wallingford, UK, CABI; 2008:113-133. [ Links ]
29. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). World Organization for Animal Health-Terrestrial Animal Health Code: Chapter 7. Transport of animals by sea. http://www.oie.int/en/internationalstandard-setting/terrestrial-code/access-online/ Accessed Nov 18, 2016. [ Links ]
30. Menczer K. Appleby MC , Cussen VA, Garcés L, Lambert LA, Turner J. Long distance transport and welfare of farm animals. Wallingford, UK, CABI 2008:182-211. [ Links ]
31. Hoffman LC, Lühl J. Causes of cattle bruising during handling and transport in Namibia. Meat Sci 2012;(92):115-124. [ Links ]
32. María GA, Villarroel M, Chacon G, Gebresenbet G. Scoring system for evaluating the stress to cattle of commercial loading and unloading. Vet Rec 2004;(154): 818-821. [ Links ]
33. Pettiford SG, Ferguson DM, Lea JM, Lee C, Paull DR, Reed MT. The effect of loading practices and 6-hour road transport on the physiological responses of yearling cattle. Australian J Exp Agr 2008;(48):1-6. [ Links ]
34. Ferguson DM, Warner RD. Have we underestimated the impact of preslaughter stress on meat quality in ruminants? Meat Sci 2008;(80):12-19. [ Links ]
35. Eriksen MS, Rødbotten R, Grøndahl AM, Friestad M, Andersen IL, Mejdell C M. Mobile abattoir versus conventional slaughterhouse-Impact on stress parameters and meat quality characteristics in Norwegian lambs. Appl Anim Behaviour Sci 2013;(149):21-29. [ Links ]
36. Werner M, Hepp C, Soto C, Gallardo P, Bustamante H, Gallo C. Effects of a long distance transport and subsequent recovery in recently weaned crossbred beef calves in Southern Chile. Livestock Sci 2013;(152):42-46. [ Links ]
37. Schwartzkopf-Genswein K, Faucitano L, Dadgar S, Shand P, González LA, Crowe TG. Road transport of cattle, swine and poultry in North America and its impact on animal welfare, carcass and meat quality: A review. Meat Sci 2012;(92):227-243. [ Links ]
38. González LA, Schwartzkopf-Genswein K, Bryan M, Silasi R, Brown F. Space allowance during commercial long distance transport of cattle in North America. J Anim Sci 2015;(10):3618-3629. [ Links ]
39. Pezzaioli. Camiones y carrocerías para el transporte de ganado - 2016. http://www.pezzaioli.es . Consultado: 20 Ene, 2017. [ Links ]
40. Mitchell MA, Kettlewell PJ. Engineering and design of vehicles for long distance transport of livestock (ruminants, pigs and poultry). Vet Italiana 2008;(44):201-213. [ Links ]
41. Weschenfelder AV, Torrey S, Devillers N, Crowec T, Bassols A, Saco Y, Piñeiro M, Saucier L, Faucitano L. Effects of trailer design on animal welfare parameters and carcass and meat quality of three Pietrain crosses being transported over a short distance. Livestock Sci 2013;(157):234-244. [ Links ]
42. Schwartzkopf-Genswein K, Grandin T. Cattle transport by road - Livestock handling and transport. Fourth ed. Wallinford, UK: CABI; 2014. [ Links ]
43. Miranda-de la Lama GC, Villarroel M, Liste G, Escós J, María GA. Critical points in the pre-slaughter logistic chain of lambs in Spain that may compromise the animal's welfare. Small Ruminant Res 2010;(90):174-178. [ Links ]
44. Sánchez M, Vieira C, De la Fuente J , Pérez MC, Lauzurica-Gomez S, González de Chavarri E, Díaz MT. Effect of season and stocking density during transport on carcass and meat quality of suckling lambs. Spanish J Agr Res 2013;(11):394-404. [ Links ]
45. Patherick CJ, Phillips JC. Space allowances for confined livestock and their determination from allometric principles. Appl Anim Behaviour Sci 2009;(117):1-12. [ Links ]
46. Schwartzkopf-Genswein K, Haley DB, Church S, Woods J, O’byrne T. An education and training programme for livestock transporters in Canada. Vet Italiana 2008;(44): 273-283. [ Links ]
47. Tarrant PV, Kenny FJ, Harrington D. The effect of stocking density during 4 hour transport to slaughter on behaviour, blood constituents and carcass bruising in Friesian steers. Meat Sci 1988;(24):209-222. [ Links ]
48. Theurer EM, White JB, Anderson ED, Miesner DM, Mosier AD, Coetzee FJ, Amrine ED. Effect of transportation during periods of high ambient temperature on physiologic and behavioral indices of beef heifers. Am J Vet Res 2013;(74):481-490. [ Links ]
49. Eldridge GA, Winfield CG. The behaviour and bruising of cattle during transport at different space allowances. Australian J Exper Agr 1988;(28):695-698. [ Links ]
50. Gebresenbet G, Aradom S, Bulitta FS, Hjerpe E. Vibration levels and frequencies on vehicle and animals during transport. Biosyst Engineering 2011;(110):10-19. [ Links ]
51. Miranda-de la Lama GC, Monge P, Villarroel M, Olleta JL, Garcia-Belenguer S, María GA. Effects of road type during transport on lamb welfare and meat quality in dry hot climates. Trop Anim Health Prod 2011;(43):915-922. [ Links ]
52. Broom DM. Causes of poor welfare and welfare assessment. In: Grandin T editor. Livestock handling and transport. Publisher city. 2007:29-40. [ Links ]
53. Ekiz B, Ekiz EE, Kocak O, Yalcintan H, Yilmaz A. Effect of pre-slaughter management regarding transportation and time in lairage on certain stress parameters, carcass and meat quality characteristics in Kivircik lambs. Meat Sci 2012;(90):967-976. [ Links ]
54. Bourguet C, Deiss V, Gobert M, Durand D, Boissy A, Terlouw EMC. Characterizing the emotional reactivity of cows to understand and predict their stress reactions to the slaughter procedure. Appl Anim Behaviour Sci 2010;(125): 9-21. [ Links ]
55. Van De Water G, Verjans F, Geers R. The effect of short distance transport under commercial conditions on the physiology of slaughter calves; pH and colourprofiles of veal. Livestock Prod Sci 2003;(82):171-179. [ Links ]
56. Thomson UD, Loneragan GH, Henningson NJ, Ensley S, Bawa B. Description of a novel fatigue syndrome of finished feedlot cattle following transportation. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2015;(247):66-72. [ Links ]
57. Gilkeson CA, Thompson HM, Wilson MCT, Gaskell PH. Quantifying passive ventilation within small livestock trailers using computational fluid dynamics. Comput Electron in Agr 2016;(124):84-99. [ Links ]
58. Phillips CJC. The welfare of livestock during sea transport. Appleby MC, Cussen VA, Garcés L, Lambert LA, Turner J. Long distance transport and welfare of farm animals. Wallingford, UK, CABI 2008:137-154. [ Links ]
59. Gregory NG. Animal welfare and meat science. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 1998. [ Links ]
60. Fisher AD, Stewart M, Duganzich DM, Tacon J, Matthews LR. The effects of stationary periods and external temperature and humidity on thermal stress conditions within sheep transport vehicles. N Z Vet J 2005;(53):6-9. [ Links ]
61. Silanikove N. Effects of heat stress on the welfare of extensively managed domestic ruminants. Livestock Prod Sci 2000;(67):1-18. [ Links ]
62. Pines MK, Phillips CJC. Accumulation of ammonia and other potentially noxious gases on live export shipments from Australia to the Middle East. J Environment Monitoring 2011;(13):2798-2807. [ Links ]
63. Cockram MS, Baxter EM, Smith LA, Bell S, Howard CM, Prescot RJ, Mitchell MA. Effect of driver behaviour, driving events and road type on the stability and resting behaviour of sheep in transit. Animal Sci 2004;(79):165-176. [ Links ]
64. Iversen H, Rundmo T. Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Personality and individual Differences 2002;(33):1251-1263. [ Links ]
65. Häkkänen H, Summala H. Fatal traffic accidents among trailer truck drivers and accident causes as viewed by other truck drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2001;(33):187-196. [ Links ]
66. Darwent D, Roach G, Dawson D. How well do truck drivers sleep in cabin sleeper berths? Applied Ergonomics 2012;(43):442-446. [ Links ]
67. Valadez-Noriega M, Estévez-Moreno LX, Rayas-Amor AA, Rubio-Lozano MS, Galindo F, Miranda-de la Lama GC. Livestock hauliers’ attitudes, knowledge and current practices towards animal welfare, occupational wellbeing and transport risk factors: A Mexican survey. Preventive Vet Med 2018;160:76-84. [ Links ]
68. Woods J, Grandin T. Fatigue: a major cause of commercial livestock truck accidents. Vet Italiana 2008;(44):259-262. [ Links ]
69. Rahman PJ, Brooke PD, Collins LM. Appleby MC , Cussen VA, Garcés L, Lambert LA, Turner J. Long distance transport and welfare of farm animals. Wallingford, UK, CABI 2008:288-318. [ Links ]
70. Loerch SC, Fluharty FL. Physiological changes and digestive capabilities of newly received feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 1999;(77):1113-1119. [ Links ]
71. Schaefer AL, Dubeski PL, Aalhus JL, Tong AKW. Role of nutrition in reducing antemortem stress and meat quality aberrations. J Anim Sci 2001;(79):E91-E101. [ Links ]
72. Fike K, Spire MF. Transportation of cattle. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2006;(22):305-320. [ Links ]
73. McEwen BS, Biron CA, Brunson KW. The role of adrenocorticoids as modulators of immune function in health and disease: neural, endocrine and immune interactions. Brain Res Rev 1997;(23):79-133. [ Links ]
74. Sutherland AM, Erlandson K, Connor FJ, Salak-Johnson LJ, Matzat P, Smith FJ, McGlone JJ. Health of non-ambulatory, non-injured pigs at processing. Livestock Sci 2008;(116):237-245. [ Links ]
75. Knowles TG, Warriss PD, Brown SN, Edwards JE, Watkins PE, Phillips AJ. Effects on calves less than one month old of feeding or not feeding them during road transport of up to 24 hours. Vet Record 1997;(140):116-124. [ Links ]
76. Knowles TG, Warriss PD. Stress physiology of animals during transport. In: Grandin T. editor. Livestock Handling and Transport, CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 2000:385-407. [ Links ]
77. Warriss PD. The handling of cattle pre-slaughter and its effects on carcass and meat quality. Appl Anim Behaviour Sci 1990;(28):171-186. [ Links ]
78. Rahman SA. Middle East. Appleby MC , Cussen VA, Garcés L, Lambert LA, Turner J. Long distance transport and welfare of farm animals. Wallingford, UK, CABI 2008:387-409. [ Links ]
79. Bosona TG, Gebresenbet G. Cluster building and logistics network integration of local food supply chain. Biosyst Engineering 2001;(108):293-302. [ Links ]
80. Cook NJ, Veira D, Church JS, Schaefer AL. Dexamethasone reduces transport-induced weight losses in beef cattle. Canadian J Anim Sci 2009;(89):335-339. [ Links ]
81. Hubbard JI. Microphysiology of vertebrate neuromuscular transmission. Physiology Rev 1973;(53):674-723. [ Links ]
82. Kietzmann M, Jablonski H. On the blocking of stress by magnesium aspartatehydrochloride in the pig. PraktischeTierarzt, 1985;(66):328-335. [ Links ]
83. Leathwood PD. Tryptophan availability and serotonin synthesis. Proc Nutrition Soc 1987;(46):143-156. [ Links ]
84. Grimmett A, Sillence MN. Calmatives for the excitable horse: a review of L-tryptophan. The Vet J 2005;170:24-32. [ Links ]
85. Schaefer AL, Jones SDM, Tong AKW, Young BA. Effects of transport and electrolyte supplementation on ion concentration, carcass yield and quality in bulls. Canadian J Anim Sci 1990;(70):107-119. [ Links ]
86. Schaefer AL, Jones SD, Stanley RW. The use of electrolyte solutions for reducing transport stress. J Anim Sci 1997;(75):258-265. [ Links ]
87. Lozano MR, Méndez RM, Mayorga KR, García MR, Ovando MA, Ngapo, TM, Maldonado FG. Effect of an allostatic modulator on stress blood indicators and meat quality of commercial young bulls in Mexico. Meat Sci 2015;(105):63-67. [ Links ]
Received: February 14, 2018; Accepted: July 24, 2019