LAUSR

The cattle industry has adopted the use of low stress handling aids however, the continuous-pulse electric prod is still used on hard-to-move cattle. This study aimed to assess behavioral responses of beef cattle after five consecutive exposures to either energized or non-energized prods for 1 s while enclosed in a squeeze chute. A total of 208 7–8 mo old crossbred Angus steers (487.6 ± 41.68 kg BW) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatments: non-energized prod (CT), continuous-pulse electric prod (CP), broken-pulse electric prod (BP) and a vibration prod (VP) that did not produce a shock. Prior to (d -3, -2 and -1; baseline), during (d 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4) and after (d 5, 6 and 7) the application of treatments, behavior of each steer was assessed including: using voice and touch (VAT; score), race transit time (RTT; s), squeeze chute score (SC; score) and flight speed (FS; m/s). Data was analyzed using GLIMMIX procedure of SAS including treatment, day and interaction as fixed effects. No treatment effect (P > 0.05) was found for VAT. The VP steers had greater (P < 0.05) RTT on d 4 and 5 compared to CT and CP, respectively. The CP steers had greater (P < 0.05) SC than CT, BP and VP. The CP had greater (P < 0.05) FS from d 0 to 7 compared to all other treatments with the exception that no differences (P > 0.05) were observed on d 1 between CP and BP. Based on SC and FS, the CP prod was more aversive to cattle than all other prods. However, due to the lack of differences in VAT and RTT measures between control and electric prods, further studies are required to determine the aversiveness of prods balanced with their ability to move hard-to-move cattle.