Assessment of the impact of pre-slaughter handling and transportation on animal welfare and beef quality in Dendi and Welmara districts, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Impacts of means transportation on animal welfare, highlighting abrasion injury observed at slaughterhouse.

Figure 2. Means of cattle transportation to slaughterhouse in the study areas, according to our survey.

Table 1. Estimated distance (km) travelled by beef cattle to reach Dendi and Welmara animal markets.

Regional market	From farm to Dendi market		From farm to Welmara market
	Distance (km)	Time (h)	Distance (km)	Time (h)
Dendi	1 – 25	3	47	11
Welmara	47	11	1 – 22	2
Ejere	35	10	12	3
Olankomi	12	3	35	10
Guder	47	18 (3 veh.)	94	24 (4 veh.)
Bake	76	24 (4 veh.)	123	48 (5 veh.)
Ambo	35	6	82	24 (4 veh.)
Gojo	87	24 (4 veh.)	134	72 (5 veh.)
Hinchini	105	24 (4 veh.)	58	12 (1 veh.)
Kachis	142	48 (5 veh.)	189	72 (6 veh)
Median ± R	47 ± 130	14.5 ± 45	70 ± 177	18 ± 70

R = Range; h = hour.

Table 2. Beef cattle handling with regard to feed and water provision by cattle trekkers and producers.

Beef cattle handling during trekking	Cattle trekkers		Producers		Overall (110)
	No	%	No	%	No	%
Allow them to feed and water	3	7.5	56	80	59	53.6
Allow them to water and but not feed	7	17.5	3	4.3	10	9.1
Allow them to feed, but not water	2	5	8	11.4	10	9.1
Did not allow feed and water	28	70	3	4.3	31	28.2
Total	40	100	70	100	110	100

Figure 3. Beef cattle body parts beaten during trekking, according to our survey.

Table 3. Estimated numbers of beef cattle handling for comfort during vehicle transportation.

Ways of beef cattle transporting by vehicle	Numbers of respondents	%
Transport 8-9 beef cattle with comfort	3	7.5
Transport 10-11 beef cattle in one vehicle with comfort	12	30
Transport 12-17 beef cattle without comfort and sometimes injury	16	40
Transport 12-17 beef cattle with comfort and bedding on the vehicle for protection of injury and safety of beef	9	22.5
Total	40	100

Table 4. Beef cattle handling during lairage.

Beef cattle handling activity	Numbers	%
There were good beef cattle handling with an allowance of water, feed, and absence of injury	2	6.7
There were poor beef cattle handling with no feeding, watering but no injuries	4	13.3
There was no watering, feeding, and sometimes fighting and injury of beef cattle	24	80
Total	30	100

Table 5. Effects of means of transport and distance (km) on beef quality parameters.

Variables	Meat quality	Ways of transportation and distance travelled to Welmara market
		Trekking				Vehicle		Total		Overall (Dendi + Welmara)
		<25km		>25km		>60Km
		No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%
pH	5.4 to 6 (normal)	6	15	7	17.5	9	22.5	22	55	38	54.3
	DFD	2	5	2	5	3	7.5	7	17.5	11	15.7
	DFD with spoilage	1	2.5	–	–	3	7.5	4	10	10	14.3
	PSE	1	3.33	–	–	–	–	1	3.3	2	2.8
	PSE with spoilage	1	3.33	–	–	–	–	1	3.3	2	2.8
Microbial load	Spoiled meat	1	2.5	3	7.5	1	2.5	5	12.5	8	11.4
Sensory evaluation	Normal meat	6	15	7	17.5	9	22.5	22	55	38	54.3
	Abnormal meat	6	15	5	12.5	7	17.5	18	45	32	45.7

n = amount of meat samples (100).

Table 6. Comparison of independent sample z-test of the variable of the study.

Variables	Distance of travelled	Duration of trekking	Age of beef cattle
pH-value (mean = 5.84)
z-test	−3.235	3.235	3.235
P-value	0.001	0.001	0.001
Microbial load
z-test	−2.601	2.601	2.601
P-value	0.005	0.005	0.005

Figure 4. Beef quality, highlighting the evaluation methods and their poor post-slaughter quality.