Parham, Jamie T.Tanner, Amy E.Blevins, Sarah R.Wahlberg, Mark L.Lewis, Ronald M.2022-07-192022-07-192022-03-010021-8812skac040http://hdl.handle.net/10919/111298Chute (CS) and exit (ES) scores are common subjective methods used to evaluate temperament in cattle production systems. A pen test, which allows behavior to be observed in a non-restrained setting, may also be an effective method to evaluate temperament by allowing more variation among animals to be expressed. The merit of pen scores in assisting producers in evaluating temperament is equivocal. The objectives of this study were to validate the usefulness of a pen score in delineating temperamental cattle and to determine whether these behavioral scores change under repeated and routine management. Over 3 consecutive years, a factorial design of two measurement protocols (frequent [F], infrequent [IN]) and three recording periods was used. The F measurements were collected over 3 consecutive days and IN measurements only on day 1 within a recording period. Each year, 20 mostly Angus commercial Bos taurus heifers were randomly assigned to each protocol. Behavior was measured using a CS, ES, and exit velocity. Body temperature and heart rate also were recorded. A fecal and blood sample were collected and analyzed for levels of various metabolites including glucose concentration and serum cortisol. Following routine handling, each heifers' response to 30 s of exposure to a human stressor was recorded both individually and in groups of four. An individual (IPS) and group (GPS) pen scores were assigned from 1 (docile) to 6 (aggressive). For all heifers, protocol, event, and their interaction, were compared on the first day of an event. For F heifers, event and day within event were instead used. Body weight was included as a covariate, with sire and year fitted as random effects. Reliability of IPS and GPS were determined using a kappa (K) coefficient. Both IPS and GPS were reliably assigned (K = 0.64 and 0.44 for IPS and GPS, respectively) and positively correlated with body temperature, heart rate, glucose, and serum cortisol (r = 0.28 to 0.37). Furthermore, F heifers acclimated to repeated handling in an individual pen setting (P < 0.05) while acclimation to handling within groups was not evident (P > 0.14). IPS provides a reliable evaluation of temperament in a non-restrained setting that is indicative of an animal's response to stress and may be useful when attempting to make phenotypic selection decisions. However, temperamental heifers became calmer with repeated gentle handling. Pen scores collected on heifers either individually or as a group can be reliably assigned and are indicative of an animal's response to stress during normal handling practices. Lay Summary Chute and exit scores are common subjective methods used to evaluate temperament in cattle production systems. A pen test, which allows behavior to be observed in a non-restrained setting, may also be an effective method to evaluate temperament by allowing more variation among animals to be expressed. However, the merit of pen scores in assisting producers in evaluating temperament has yet to be discerned. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to validate the usefulness of pen scores in delineating temperamental cattle and to determine whether these behavioral scores change under repeated and routine management. Pen scores collected on heifers either individually or as a group could be assigned reliably and were indicative of an animal's response to stress during normal handling practices. Temperamental heifers, when handled more frequently, acclimated to repeated handling in an individual pen setting but not in a group. Therefore, regardless of method, when cattle are excitable during their first handling experience, more than one observation of temperament may be beneficial before assessing temperament.application/pdfenCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Internationalacclimationbeef cattlepen scoretemperamentCattle acclimate more substantially to repeated handling when confined individually in a pen than when assessed as a groupArticle - RefereedJournal of Animal Sciencehttps://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skac0401003351436711525-3163