Journal of Veterinary Behavior (2009) 4, 157-162

2008 AUSTRALIAN RSPCA WELFARE SYMPOSIUM

The influence of land transport on animal welfare

in extensive farming systems
Andrew D. Fisher, Ian G. Colditz, Caroline Lee, Drewe M. Ferguson

CSIRO Livestock Industries, FD McMaster Laboratory, Armidale NSW, Australia.

KEYWORDS: Abstract The land transport of animals can have 3 types of influence on their welfare. First, the han-
cattle; dling, loading, and novelty of the transport environment and experience can induce a psychological
sheep; stress response in animals. Second, the withdrawal of feed and water and the need to stand and main-
transport; tain balance for transport periods can cause a physiological and fatigue challenge to the animals.
animal welfare Finally, the thermal and physical conditions of the vehicle and journey can present a risk to the physical
integrity of the transported animals.
The key determinant of animal welfare is the way in which transport is conducted. The stress
response during loading and the initial stages of transport may be minimized by careful handling, good
design of facilities, and appropriate stocking densities and driving techniques. Where animals are not
fed and watered during land transport, they vary in their ability to cope with periods of feed and water
withdrawal, depending on their species, age, physiological state, and pre-transport access to feed and
water. Journey conditions can also be an influence, with cold conditions exacerbating the effects of
feed withdrawal and hot conditions increasing the risk of dehydration. The facilities containing the
animals on the vehicle should minimize the risks of physical injury caused by falls, knocks, bruising,
and the protrusion of body parts. Stocking density can also be managed to lessen the influences on an-
imal welfare caused by hot conditions. In a well-ventilated vehicle, it is the stationary periods rather
than periods in motion that present the greatest risk of heat stress. The opposite is true for very cold
conditions. The land transport of livestock is neither inherently good nor inherently bad for their wel-
fare. Rather, it is the way that it is done, and the management of the risks involved, that determine the
level of welfare of the animals involved.
Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Introduction result in the need to move animals to central points, whether

The land transport of livestock is an essential element of
extensive farm production systems. Particularly for sheep
and cattle, widely spread, pasture-based farming systems
Address for reprint requests and correspondence: Andrew Fisher,
CSIRO Livestock Industries, FD McMaster Laboratory, Locked Bag 1, Ar-
midale NSW 2350, Australia; Phone: 161 2 6776 1435; Fax: 161 2 6776
1333
E-mail: Andrew.Fisher@csiro.au
for sale or slaughter. Livestock may be transported within
properties, between properties, and between a property and
saleyard, abattoir, feedlot, and pre-export assembly depot.
Livestock can be transported to growing and finishing
properties, markets, or to make best use of seasonal condi-
tions. In this way, the need to transport sheep and cattle from
many disparate points of origin differs from the way in which
many other commercial goods are moved from concentrated
points of origin, or the more concentrated and vertically
integrated pig and poultry industries. For example, in

1558-7878/$ -see front matter Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc.

doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2009.03.002
158
Australia, government data indicate that there are more than
70 000 properties with cattle in Australia, and more than
45 000 properties with sheep (ABARE, 2008). In contrast,
there are fewer than 2000 pig farms.
Of course, the transport of live animals is completely
different from the movement of other commercial goods,
because animals have the capacity to suffer. This is
recognized in Australia through the development of legis-
lation and in animal welfare codes, in the development of
quality assurance (QA) within the livestock trucking
industry (ALTA, 2007), and in the QA program for Queens-
land Rail, which is the only rail network to still transport
livestock, specifically cattle (Queensland Rail, 2005). The
fact that livestock transport can present specific animal
welfare risks also probably influenced the move to have
land transport of livestock as the first set of standards and
guidelines for animal welfare developed under the new
Australian system (de Witte, 2008).
It is the contention of this paper that the land transport of
livestock is neither inherently good nor inherently bad for
their welfare. Rather, it is the way that it is done, and the
management of the risks involved, that determine the level
of welfare of the animals involved.
So what are the risks to animal welfare during land
transport? We suggest that the animal welfare risks fall into
3 categories: (1) stress and fear due to handling, loading,
and the conditions and novelty of transport; (2) hydration,
energy, and fatigue challenges that increase with transport
duration; and (3) risks to the thermal comfort and physical
integrity of the animals. In this paper, each of these areas is
reviewed in turn, with a focus on the livestock species.
Stress and fear due to handling, loading, and
the conditions and novelty of transport
The challenge posed by the conditions and novelty of the
transport experience can be influenced or modified by
several factors. These factors include: (1) the selection of
animals that are fit for the intended journey; (2) the way the
animals are mustered, handled, and loaded; (3) the standard
of yard, ramp, and vehicle facilities; and (4) the previous
experience and genetic background of the animals.
In general, there is a lack of published scientific
literature on the influence of fitness on the welfare of
livestock during land transport. Fitness in this context
means being of appropriate health and vigor for the
intended journey and conditions. Common sense would
suggest that animals in poor condition, such as drought-
affected animals in reduced body condition, would not have
the same capacity to cope with extended transport dura-
tions, but this situation has rarely been scientifically
investigated outside the confines of practical experiences
of transporting drought-affected stock.
A survey of cattle transported by rail in Queensland in
the late 1970s (Tobin, 1981), revealed a mortality rate of
Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 4, No 4, July/August 2009
0.36%. Cattle, particularly older cows that were in poor
body condition at the start of a journey, were at greater
risk of death.
There are practical guidelines available for the prepara-
tion of stock and determining fitness for transport. For
example, to assist in determining whether animals are in a
fit state to travel (MLA 2006), a publication for transport
operators and animal producers was developed to provide
pictorial representation of animals that should not be
transported. The guidelines stated that an animal was fit
to travel if it: could walk normally, bearing weight on all 4
legs; was not suffering from any visible disease or injury
that could cause it harm during transport; was able to keep
up with the group at both loading and unloading; could see
out of at least 1 eye; and was not in late pregnancy. Similar
guidelines were developed in a European context by the
Federation of Veterinarians in Europe, and modified by the
European Commission Scientific Committee on Animal
Health and Animal Welfare (EC SCAHAW, 2002).
Inappropriate mustering and handling can result in
animals that are significantly stressed at the beginning of
a journey. If mustering has been prolonged, it is recom-
mended practice to allow animals some time to rest before
transport. The presence of well-designed and -maintained
facilities for loading livestock is critical for promoting
smooth animal flow and minimizing stress. Finally, it is
important to realize that animals that are less domesticated
or that have not been handled very much will be more at
risk of stress during mustering, loading, and transport, and
more at risk of injuring themselves (or handlers) due to
excessive flight responses or fear-induced aggression.
Animals may be managed under extensive conditions
with minimal contact with humans so that even the slightest
contact can initiate a substantial fear response. Grandin
(1997) proposed that previous experience may affect an an-
imal’s fear response and may be responsible for the variable
results reported in transport studies. For example, exten-
sively reared animals may experience more psychological
fear during loading than intensively reared animals. In a
study using steers that were not familiar with human con-
tact, handling during loading was associated with an in-
creased cortisol response, which was suggested to be
more disturbing than the truck ride itself (Tennessen
et al., 1984). For extensively reared livestock, Grandin
(1997) suggests that rest stops where livestock are removed
from the transport may compromise welfare due to the
stress associated with loading and unloading. It may there-
fore be beneficial to familiarize stock with human handlers
on a regular basis to reduce the stress of handling. An im-
portant example is that of feral goats, which need to be kept
and fed within fenced compounds for some time until they
are settled before loading and transport.
In general, loading has been shown to be more stressful
than unloading, with more adverse effects on the animals’
welfare (Maria et al., 2004). Unloading does not appear to
produce a significant stress response, with no increase in
Fisher et al Land transport and animal welfare
cortisol or body temperature reported in cattle (Warriss
et al., 1995; Pettiford et al., 2008) or sheep (Broom et al.,
1996).
Following loading and journey commencement, research
suggests that after an initial increase in stress indicators,
most animals tend to show declines in physiological
measures such as cortisol from peak values within 1 to
3 hours. For example, a study in the United Kingdom by
Knowles et al. (1995) transported sheep by road for up to
24 hours. Blood samples collected from animals trans-
ported for varying durations within that time frame revealed
a peak in the stress-responsive hormone cortisol within the
early stages of transport (about 3 hours). Blood samples
collected after 9 to 24 hours of transport, however, showed
cortisol concentrations similar to pretransport values. In
cattle, a study by Pettiford et al. (2008) showed that plasma
cortisol and body temperature peaked within the first 1 to
2 hours of a 6-hour road journey conducted under good
practice. However, it is important to recognize that a corti-
sol decline from an initial stress-induced peak may not
mean that the animals have wholly adapted to the transport
process. The initial response to handling and the novelty of
the transport experience may have diminished, but other
factors such as hydration and fatigue become more impor-
tant as the journey continues. Furthermore, studies of situ-
ations other than transport have shown that physiological
feedback mechanisms can attenuate responses such as cor-
tisol, despite animals remaining in conditions that are mea-
surably behaviorally stressful (Munksgaard et al., 1999).
Animal genetics can also influence stress and fear
responses to handling and transport. In cattle, for example,
behavioral responses to handling can vary widely and have
been shown to be heritable (Burrow and Corbet, 2000;
Kadel et al., 2006). Research on transporting cattle of dif-
ferent temperaments has shown that more docile animals
lose less weight as a result of transport and recover that
weight more quickly than more flighty animals (Burrow
et al., 1998; Colditz et al., 2006).
Hydration, energy, and fatigue challenges
associated with journey duration
As a journey continues, the initial psychological stress
challenges induced by handling, loading, and the novelty of
the transport experience tend to give way to challenges
associated with journey duration, specifically the risks of
dehydration, and metabolic and physical fatigue. In Aus-
tralia, transported farm animals are generally not fed or
watered during the journey on board the vehicle. This is not
in itself a problem, provided that the overall time off water
does not cause clinical dehydration of the animals. The risk
of dehydration for transported animals depends on: (1)
species (ruminant vs monogastric); (2) age, physiological
state, and condition; and (3) thermal conditions during the
journey.
159
Ruminants such as sheep and cattle tend to cope better
with periods of transport-associated water deprivation than
monogastrics such as pigs, because the amount of water
contained within the rumen contents provides some buff-
ering capacity against the effects of water deprivation
during the journey. Although definitely not recommended
in a transport context, an experimental study from the
United States some years ago (Cole, 1995) withheld water
from (nontransported) wether sheep for up to 72 hours
under controlled, mild environmental conditions in housed
pens. The study found that although total body water
declined by 17%, the sheep were relatively resistant to
changes in water content of their circulation, with water
content of their plasma declining by 3%. In contrast,
plasma osmolality, an indicator of the concentration of
solutes in plasma (and thus inversely related to the water
content), rose by up to 5% in pigs deprived of water for
12 hours in a separate experiment (Houpt and Yang, 1995).
It is important to note that there are interactions between
the thermal conditions of a journey and the animals’
resistance to the effects of water withdrawal. In untrans-
ported sheep, Lowe et al. (2002) found that the most rapid
increase in plasma osmolality occurred in animals that were
both temporarily deprived of water and exposed to hot con-
ditions. Thus, greater care needs to be taken in managing
the water deprivation period associated with transport
during hot weather.
Within a species, breed and previous adaptation can
have significant effects on animals’ ability to cope with
periods of heat challenge and water withdrawal, such as
those that may occur during transport. For example,
exposure to controlled hot conditions produced signifi-
cantly greater rectal temperatures in purebred Hereford
cattle than in animals produced by cross-breeding with Bos
indicus sires (Gaughan et al. 1997). Similarly, animals that
have been managed in hot environments are better able to
cope with subsequent challenges (Silanikove, 2000).
Given the influence of journey conditions on resistance
to dehydration in transported livestock, it is difficult to
place absolute limits on journey times (or more correctly,
water deprivation times). For example, the current Austra-
lian codes for the transport of sheep and cattle specify a
maximum interval of 48 hours between the provision of
water at the start and end of a journey (MCOP, 1999). Al-
though there is evidence indicating that transported cattle
(Parker et al., 2003) and untransported sheep (Cole, 1995)
can cope with such periods without water, there is generally
a lack of published scientific studies to inform discussion
on appropriate limits on water withdrawal for transported
livestock under extensive conditions. This gap is currently
being addressed in the Australian context by research
funded by Meat and Livestock Australia and conducted
by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation (CSIRO). From a regulatory perspective, any
absolute limits on journey or water deprivation times
should not diminish the individual responsibility of
160
transport operators and animal caregivers to transport
livestock in a manner that addresses the journey conditions
and state of the animals. In some cases, ensuring good
animal welfare during transport may mean having shorter
transport and water withdrawal times than the maximum
limits provided by regulation.
In general, because livestock are neither fed nor watered
during transportation, the influence of water withdrawal is
likely to be of serious consideration before any serious
challenge resulting from a lack of food. For example, sheep
transported by Knowles et al. (1995) for up to 24 hours
tended to show an increase in plasma glucose during the
journey, rather than a decrease that would indicate meta-
bolic exhaustion. This plasma glucose increase was most
probably due to the initial stress response inducing a mobi-
lization of body energy reserves.
However, there are 2 situations where metabolic chal-
lenge to the welfare of animals needs to be given careful
consideration. In very cold conditions, which can be
exacerbated by wind chill in a moving vehicle, animals
rapidly mobilize body energy reserves to try to maintain
body temperature. Very young animals also can be at risk,
with a proportionally higher metabolic demand, and often
lower fat and energy reserves. These risks can be mini-
mized by reducing flow-through ventilation, and in extreme
cases by stopping the vehicle. Again, this is an area where
the extent of practical knowledge is much greater than the
scant available scientific data.
We have relatively little knowledge on fatigue effects
during transport, although it is a reasonable presumption
that animals become tired if they are standing for a long
journey. We do not have good data regarding how tired
animals become, and what is the risk of associated suffer-
ing. Plasma indicators of muscle exertion and damage, such
as the enzyme CK, do not always increase with journey
length, but tend to be more responsive to knocks and
bruises. Animals may lie down at the end of a journey, but
these responses may be variable. For example, in a New
Zealand study, 6-month pregnant dairy cows transported for
9 hours did not spend any time lying in the 2 hours after
-arrival, but grazed instead (Fisher et al., 1999). This does
not in itself prove that the animals were not tired, but sug-
gests that eating was more of a priority for the animals at
arrival than lying down and resting. Fatigue is likely to
increase over longer journeys, although individual animals
may vary. Cattle transported for 31 hours in bedded vehi-
cles tended to start to lie down after 24 hours of transport,
although not all animals did so (Knowles et al., 1999).
Fatigue is also more likely to be an issue in heavier
animals.
The question of whether a long journey is better
managed by unloading the animals for rest stops with
feed and water has no definitive answer for all situations.
Rest stops may benefit animal fatigue and hydration in the
short term, but such stops may add extra loading and
unloading events and prolong the overall duration of a
Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 4, No 4, July/August 2009
journey. A study by Krawczel et al. (2007) found that lambs
transported for 22 hours interspersed by a 6-hour rest stop
and a 24-hour rest stop had better metabolite and body
weight status than lambs transported continuously for
22 hours, but the rest stops did not alter transport-induced
immunosuppression and resulted in a total journey of
52 hours. Similarly, Fisher et al. (1999) found that trans-
ported dairy cows benefited from overnight rest, feeding,
and watering in terms of hydration and muscle status, but
bodyweight and serum magnesium concentrations were
significantly reduced by the overall journey. Accordingly,
the decision to take rest stops should be based on journey
conditions and the state of the animals. When animals are
traveling well under good conditions, it is probably better
to continue the journey, provided that it can be completed
within the acceptable limits discussed earlier.
Risks to thermal comfort and physical
integrity
Under Australian conditions, challenges due to hot weather
are a more frequent issue for consideration than issues of
cold stress during livestock transport. However, although
we do not have data, it has been reported by transporters
that truckloads of sheep being transported in very cold
weather sometimes need to be halted to prevent wind chill
and hypothermia in the animals. This reflects the fact that
being on a moving vehicle (without controlled ventilation)
is more of a risk for animals during very cold weather, but
confinement on a stationary vehicle is more of a risk during
hot conditions, particularly for sheep. The thermal suscep-
tibility of sheep to very hot or cold conditions is obviously
influenced by the length of their wool. It should also be
noted that pigs and poultry are more susceptible to heat
stress than sheep and cattle, although the distances moved
by these species is often shorter and can also be more easily
scheduled to avoid hot periods of the day. Poultry transport
vehicles, in which the birds are contained in crates, also
have adjustable side ventilation in the form of flaps or
covers. Data from the United Kingdom obtained by Mitch-
ell and Kettlewell (1998) found that a typical poultry trans-
port vehicle, when operated with the side ventilation open
at an ambient temperature of 21  C, resulted in tempera-
tures inside the crates of a reasonable 24  C to 27  C. In
winter, with an ambient temperature of less than 10  C,
keeping the side covers closed produced temperatures for
the birds of 23  C to 26  C.
In Australia, transport vehicle stock crates for sheep and
cattle rely on natural ventilation, and there is little capacity
for adjustment, apart from measures under some conditions
such as covering the front aspect with a tarpaulin or similar.
However, under most conditions it appears that the design
of the stock crates works well from a ventilation standpoint
(Lapworth, 1986; Town and Lapworth, 1990). One poten-
tial risk to animal welfare is long stationary periods during
Fisher et al Land transport and animal welfare
hot conditions with little air movement. A study in New
Zealand by Fisher et al. (2002) found that the temperature
and humidity index (THI) within a sheep transport vehicle
rose rapidly once the vehicle was stationary in an environ-
ment with no air movement. The THI is a measure of ther-
mal comfort or heat stress, and values above 80 can cause
significant heat stress. In the study, the THI on board the
vehicle increased above 90 during the 3-hour stationary pe-
riod, even though the ambient THI never rose above 80
(Fisher et al., 2002). Because sheep are smaller than cattle
(and thus there is less effective space within the vehicle),
and because they are covered in wool, stationary periods
may be more of a challenge during hot weather for sheep,
and if stationary, vehicles should be positioned to maximize
airflow across the stock crate.
Risks to the physical integrity of animals during land
transport are associated with animals becoming injured
during loading or unloading, being smothered or falling
during the journey, having body parts protruding from the
vehicle in a manner that risks injury, or even worse, falling or
escaping from the moving vehicle. There is little scientific
data on these risks, and much of the management of the
animal welfare challenges comes down to appropriate vehi-
cle design, careful handling, not overloading animals, and
checking the animals at regular intervals during the journey.
Recommended stocking densities during transport are pub-
lished in the Australian welfare codes, and there is strong
evidence that overloading beyond the recommended values
predisposes animals to injury. Eldridge and Winfield (1988)
measured bruising in 400-kg steers transported at low
(0.89 m2/animal), medium (1.16 m2/animal) and high
(1.39 m2/animal) space allowances. For comparison, the
welfare code recommendation for 400-kg cattle is currently
1.05 m2/animal. The study found that bruising was signifi-
cantly greater in animals densely packed at 0.89 m2/animal.
Cattle transported at 1.16 m2 had only one-quarter the level
of bruising of the most densely loaded animals. Interestingly,
there was a moderate increase in bruising at 1.39 m2/animal,
suggesting that excessive space can reduce the ability of the
animals to brace themselves and may increase the distance an
animal can move or slip before hitting something. It is recom-
mended practice that internal pen divisions present in
vehicles be used, even when transporting just a few animals,
to minimize the amount of excess room and reduce the risk
of injury.
Interactions between welfare risk factors
As described earlier, hot conditions can increase the risk of
dehydration in animals restricted from access to water.
There are other important interactions between our cate-
gories of welfare challenge that need to be managed to
ensure good animal welfare.
In the study by Fisher et al. (2002), a stationary period re-
sulted in a rapid increase in THI on board the vehicle.
161
However, the rate of THI increase varied with the stocking
density of the sheep. In vehicles loaded at standard space al-
lowance (0.20 m2/animal for the class of sheep used in the
study), the THI increase was much more rapid and reached
higher levels (91.0) than vehicles loaded at a reduced stock-
ing density (0.26 m2/animal; THI peak 5 84.9). Thus, a re-
duced stocking density, particularly for sheep, may provide
some protection against heat stress during journeys.
Similar interactions have been shown for journey duration
and handling. In a European study by Hambrecht et al.
(2005), pigs subjected to both longer transport duration and
rougher handling had far greater plasma concentrations of
cortisol than pigs subjected to either component alone.
Weather conditions and journey duration may also combine
to challenge animal welfare. Australian survey data collected
by Cave et al. (2005) on mortality of young calves during
transport showed that although calf mortality increased
with journey distance, there was a strong additional effect
of year, which was likely to have been associated with differ-
ent weather conditions during the calf transport season.
Although the interactions between different risk factors
may appear just to present further problems, it is also
appropriate to examine how these interactions may be used
to successfully manage animal welfare during transport. For
example, if some factors, such as weather conditions, happen
to be unavoidable, there may be other parameters that can be
adjusted to safeguard animal welfare. Thus, animals may
benefit from slightly lower stocking densities during very long
journeys, or if weather conditions are anticipated to be hot.
Conclusions
The land transport of extensively reared livestock in coun-
tries such as Australia is a practical necessity for farming
under pastoral conditions, and it is neither inherently good
nor inherently bad; it is how it is managed that most
influences animal welfare. The risk factors to animal welfare
include stress and fear due to handling, loading, and trans-
port, as well as hydration, energy, and fatigue challenges, and
risks to thermal comfort and physical integrity. The transport
of animals can have almost no influence on their welfare, or if
things go wrong, it can have a very significant adverse
influence on animal welfare. Although the risk factors for
animal welfare described can interact to provide additional
risks, it is often the interactions of these factors that provide
the opportunity to successfully manage animal welfare.
References
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE),
2008. Farm survey data for the beef, slaughter lambs and sheep indus-
tries. Available at: http://www.abareconomics.com/ame/mla/mla.asp.
Accessed September 15, 2008.
Australian Livestock Transporters Association (ALTA), 2007. TruckCare.
Quality System Manual for Livestock Transporters.
162
Broom, D.M., Goode, J.A., Hall, S.J.G., Lloyd, D.M., Parrott, R.F., 1996.
Hormonal and physiological effects of a 15 hour road journey in
sheep: comparison with the responses to loading, handling and
penning in the absence of transport. Br. Vet. J. 152, 593-604.
Burrow, H.M., Colditz, I.G., Oddy, V.H., 1998. Evaluation of the effect of
Nutricharge on weight loss during long-distance transport: Final
Report FLOT.204. Meat Research Corporation, Sydney, Australia.
Burrow, H.M., Corbet, N.J., 2000. Genetic and environmental factors
affecting temperament of zebu and zebu-derived beef cattle grazed
at pasture in the tropics. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 51, 155-162.
Cave, J.G., Callinan, A.P.L., Woonton, W.K., 2005. Mortalities in bobby
calves associated with long distance transport. Aust. Vet. J. 83, 82-84.
Colditz, I.G., Watson, D.L., Kilgour, R., Ferguson, D.M., Prideaux, C.,
Ruby, J., Kirkland, P.D., Sullivan, K., 2006. Impact of animal health
and welfare research within the CRC for Cattle and Beef Quality on
Australian beef production. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 46, 233-244.
Cole, N.A., 1995. Influence of a three-day feed and water deprivation
period on gut fill, tissue weights, and tissue composition in mature
wethers. J. Anim. Sci. 73, 2548-2557.
De Witte, K., 2008. National standards for animal welfare: Case study
(land transport of livestock). RSPCA Australia Scientific Seminar
2008. Available at: http://www.rspca.org.au/events/seminars08_
paper_deWitte.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2008.
European Commission Scientific Committee on Animal Health and
Animal Welfare (EC SCAHAW), 2002. The welfare of animals during
transport (details for horses, pigs, sheep and cattle). European Com-
mission, Brussels. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/ou-
t71_en.pdf. Accessed 11 November 2008.
Fisher, A.D., Pearce, P.V., Matthews, L.R., 1999. The effects of long haul
transport on pregnant, non-lactating dairy cows. N.Z. Vet. J. 47,
161-166.
Fisher, A.D., Stewart, M., Tacon, J., Matthews, L.R., 2002. The effects of
stock crate design and stocking density on environmental conditions
for lambs on road transport vehicles. N.Z. Vet. J. 50, 148-153.
Gaughan, J.B., Rowan, K.J., Josey, M.J., Srikandakumar, A., 1997. Evalu-
ation of heat resistance of F1 progeny of Boran, Tuli and Brahman
bulls and Hereford dams. Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference of
the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genet-
ics, Dubbo, Australia, Part 1, pp. 198–201.
Grandin, T., 1997. Assessment of stress during handling and transport. J.
Anim. Sci. 75, 249-257.
Hambrecht, E., Eissen, J.J., Newman, D.J., Smits, C.H.M., den Hartog, L.A.,
Verstegen, M.W.A., 2005. Negative effects of stress immediately before
slaughter on pork quality are aggravated by suboptimal transport and
lairage conditions. J. Anim. Sci. 83, 440-448.
Houpt, T.R., Yang, H., 1995. Water deprivation, plasma osmolality, blood
volume and thirst in young pigs. Physiol. Behav. 57, 49-54.
Kadel, M.J., Johnston, D.J., Burrow, H.M., Graser, H.U., Ferguson, D.M.,
2006. Genetics of flight time and other measures of temperament and
Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 4, No 4, July/August 2009
their value as selection criteria for improving meat quality traits in
tropically adapted breeds of beef cattle. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 57,
1029-1035.
Knowles, T.G., Brown, S.N., Warriss, P.D., Phillips, A.J., Dolan, S.K.,
Hunt, P., Ford, J.E., Edwards, J.E., Watkins, P.E., 1995. Effects on
sheep of transport by road for up to 24 hours. Vet. Rec. 136, 431-438.
Knowles, T.G., Warriss, P.D., Brown, S.N., Edwards, J.E., 1999. Effects on
cattle of transportation by road for up to 31 hours. Vet. Rec. 145,
575-582.
Krawczel, P.D., Friend, T.H., Caldwell, D.J., Archer, G., Ameiss, K., 2007.
Effects of continuous versus intermittent transport on plasma constit-
uents and antibody response of lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 85, 468-476.
Lapworth, J.W., 1986. Advances in road transportation. Proc. Aust. Soc.
Anim. Prod. 16, 114-115.
Lowe, T.E., Gregory, N.G., Fisher, A.D., Payne, S.R., 2002. The effects of
temperature elevation and water deprivation on lamb physiology, wel-
fare, and meat quality. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 53, 707-714.
Maria, G.A., Villarroel, M., Chacon, G., Gebresenbet, G., 2004. Scoring
system for evaluating the stress to cattle of commercial loading and
unloading. Vet. Rec. 154, 818-821.
Australian Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals (MCOP),
1999. Land Transport of Cattle. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood,
Victoria.
Mitchell, M.A., Kettlewell, P.J., 1998. Physiological stress and welfare of
broiler chickens in transit: solutions not problems. Poultry Sci. 77,
1803-1814.
Munksgaard, L., Ingvartsen, K.L., Pedersen, L.J., Nielsen, V.K.M., 1999.
Deprivation of lying down affects behaviour and pituitary-adrenal
axis responses in young bulls. Acta Agric. Scand. 49, 172-178.
Parker, A.J., Hamlin, G.P., Coleman, C.J., Fitzpatrick, L.A., 2003. Quanti-
tative analysis of acid-base balance in Bos indicus steers subjected to
transportation of long duration. J. Anim. Sci. 81, 1434-1439.
Pettiford, S.G., Ferguson, D.M., Lea, J.M., Lee, C., Paull, D.R.,
Reed, M.T., Hinch, G.N., Fisher, A.D., 2008. The effect of loading
practices and 6 hour road transport on the physiological responses
of yearling cattle. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 48, 1028-1033.
Queensland Rail, 2005. QR Stock Handling Guidelines.
Silanikove, N., 2000. Effects of heat stress on the welfare of extensively
managed domestic ruminants. Livest. Prod. Sci. 67, 1-18.
Tennessen, T., Price, M.A., Berg, R.T., 1984. Comparative responses of
bulls and steers to transportation. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 64, 333-338.
Town, W.K., Lapworth, J.W., 1990. The use of wind tunnel modelling to
improve the transport environment in roadtrains carrying livestock
on unsealed roads. Proceedings of an Agricultural Engineering Con-
ference, 11-14 November 1990, Toowoomba, Australia, pp.
435–438. Institution of Engineers, Barton, ACT, Australia.
Warriss, P.D., Brown, S.N., Knowles, T.G., Kestin, S.C., Edwards, J.E.,
Dolan, S.K., Phillips, A.J., 1995. Effects on cattle of transport by
road for up to 15 hours. Vet. Rec. 136, 319-323.