4s J* Safety-Che Handling Fa^ilitr^* To Reduce Live FARMER COOPERATIVE SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries with support from LYRASIS and the Sloan Foundation Jetails/safetycheck62unit Contents Page What are handling facilities? 2 Why make a safety-check? 4 Things to look for in safety-checking 5 Obvious hazards 5 Hidden dangers 7 Some special considerations 8 Ways to make an adequate safety-check 9 Checkpoints for safety 13 Safety-Checking Handling Facilities To Reduce Livestock Losses by Joseph E. Rickenbacker Transport at ion Branch Management Services Division The livestock industry loses millions of dollars each year when animals are injured during handling and trans- portation. Farmer Cooperative Service found that bruise damage alone, dis- covered at time of slaughter, probably amounts to over $25 million a year. Injuries can occur during other periods of movement. This may cause similar losses if the animals go "off feed," for instance. Many bruise injuries are associated with facilities used in handling live- stock. In a study of loss and damage to hogs, losses ran about 30 percent higher where facilities were inadequate, im- proper, or in disrepair. This publication is designed to help farmers, ranchers, cooperatives and other market agencies, and others in- terested in the livestock industry to evaluate their own livestock handling facilities. Then corrections and im- provements where necessary will help the industry reduce handling losses. What Are Handling Facilities? Handling facilities include almost any structure or device used to move livestock to market or the processing plant, or to take care of animals. These facilities exist in one way or another wherever livestock are. On farms and ranches facilities may be extremely limited and quite simple. In stock- yards and packing plants they are num- erous and often quite complicated. They are mobile as well as station- ary. They may be used to control animals or to limit available space. Handling facilities may help people carry out special operations needed in marketing or processing livestock. Strictly speaking, these special- ized facilities are more closely associated with transportation. Con- siderations of these vehicles from the standpoint of damage -free movement of livestock are of such importance that they should be treated separately. Here we will deal only with stationary handling facilities. A simple pen is the most common form of livestock handling facility. Next is a group of pens. Connecting passageways and alleys are another important handling facility. Structures to help load or unload animals are important, too. This Stairsteps facilitate loading animals into vehicles for over- the- road movement . This stairstep chute has solid sides which prevent the hogs from being distracted by outside factors during loading. The level plat form at the top enables animals to enter the truck easily. type of facility is usually a loading chute but frequently includes docks or platforms and catch-pens. Pens, alleys, and chutes — general handling facilities -- are found on farms, ranches, in feedlots, at sales barns, at railroad stations, at country buying points, in stockyards, and in packing plants. Other specialized fa- cilities may be used at a limited num- ber of places or for only one function. Examples include scales at concentra- tion points, squeeze chutes for use in treating an animal or examining it under restraint, or specialized facil- ities at packing plants such as spray pens, the knocking box, and the like. Loss and damage from injury occur with both the common type and the specialized facilities. Properly plan- ned, soundly constructed, and well- maintained facilities of any type go a long way toward insuring damage -free handling of livestock in any handling phase — sorting, loading, unloading, yarding, slaughtering. Why Make a Safety-Check? FCS found that the average cost of a bruise was about 76 cents a head on cattle, 39 cents on lambs, and 34 cents on hogs. Since bruises often result from handling through stationary fa- cilities, if these facilities were free of hazards, bruise loss would drop. Safety-checking facilities, then, is good business. It is economically sound. Not all handling facilities are care- fully planned. Many of them have "just grown." While individual sections of a facility may be adequate and safe, col- lectively they may be complicated and hazardous. Facilities deteriorate. Many are exposed to the weather. Others are often subject to use that helps cause deterioration. Things To Look For in Safety-Checking From the standpoint of safety, things to look for in a handling facility fall into two general categories. First is the condition of the facility itself. Second are the more elusive hazards that arise through the actual use of the facility in handling the livestock. The first category includes such things as condition of fences, inclines, docks, and the like. The other category covers layouts or facility arrangements and how they influence safe movement and handling. Obvious Hazards Many livestock facilities can be made safe by correcting hazardous conditions that are obvious. Usually these hazards can be eliminated with- out spending large amounts of either time or money. The average livestock handler knows most of these hazards. For example, shaky or unsound floors are unsafe. Sharp-pointed projections in narrow passageways can cause injury if run into in a hurry. Gates or doors left standing ajar are an open invitation to injury. Each part of a facility should be carefully checked for any condition that could contribute to livestock in- jury. This includes examining sides, floors, gates, ramps, inclines, chutes and crossovers, and checking equip- ment within the facility (such as feed and water troughs). Animal hairs or wool sticking to a part of the facility or some part -- such as a post -- rubbed smooth will often show that bruise injury occurred there. A metal hasp brightly polished is proof enough that passing animals have been bruised by striking against it. The fastener should be moved higher than the critical area. Besides actual structural defects, there may be other hazards. For example, material left lying around in alleys and pens is a danger. Outside approaches to loading chutes may be such that the bed of the truck does not line up with the platform or dock, forcing animals to jump up or down into the vehicle. At the end of this publication are some check points for safety that livestock handlers can use in checking their facilities for ob- vious hazards and safety defects. These check points can be used with equal effectiveness at farm feedlots, auctions or railroad stockyards, or in the applicable sections of large public stockyards and packing plants. Hidden Dangers Whether or not livestock really "think" is a moot question, but evidence shows they have preferences or dis- positions toward specific handling con- ditions and practices. The layout of a given facility should recognize and utilize the animals' dispositions and inclinations during movement. Plan- ning layouts to make full use of this "follow-the-leader" instinct will pay dividends. The more complex the arrangement of pens and alleys, the greater the like- lihood of injury to animals moving through the facility. Straight lines and level walkways seem safest. Stairs are The entrance to this scale house presents a really hazardous situation- -note the raised sill running clear across the entrance. Observe the "poc/ret" just in- side the scale house. A hog or lamb caught here isn* t likely to escape some bruise damage. apparently preferable to cleated in- clines. Abrupt changes in direction frequently result in bewilderment and can cause pileups at critical points and injury. The way to safety-check for these hidden dangers is to observe live- stock going through the facility. More than one observation may be neces- sary before the facility can be thoroughly evaluated. The operator can never be sure his facility really works until it has been safety-checked this way. Some Special Considerations For complete appraisal, operation of the facility should also be con- sidered. Don't forget these factors: 1. Weather. - Judge the facility on the basis of all types of weather likely to occur when animals move through the facility. What might be a safe condition in dry, warm weather might be dangerous during rain or cold with ice and snow. 2. Species of Animal. - A single species may use the facility exclusively, or all species may use it at one time or another. If the latter is true, each of the species using the facility must be considered in making the safety check. As an example, fasteners on gates will have to be higher if cattle occasionally use the facility than if only hogs or sheep use it. 3. Capacity. - The number of animals likely to use the facility from time to time must be considered. The maximum number of animals of each of the species likely to use it should be determined and the evaluation made on this basis. 4. Handling Personnel. - There is some merit to the saying, "A facility is no better than the people who use it. M Experienced handlers can often min- imize hazardous and unsafe situations in facilities and equipment. Equally true, intemperate or impatient handlers can create unsafe situations and make a hazard from an otherwise safe condi- tion. A proper evaluation should in- clude a careful judgment of the han- dling ability and temperament of those who will direct the livestock through the facility. Ways To Make an Adequate Safety-Check As we said, in many cases a facility can be adequately checked by care- fully inspecting the construction and condition of the equipment itself. This involves looking for obvious defects and hazards. Generally, such an in- spection will be adequate for facilities of a limited size, such as a small farm feedlot or perhaps a one- or two-pen country concentration point, or when only one section or part of a larger facility is to be evaluated. The list of check points for safety at the end of the publication provides v a *'"- '4 ""' * A common hazard at many loading facilities is illustrated here. Note how the drive area is worn and "dug out" where the drive meets the chute. The bed of the truck probably could not line up with the chute , forcing animals to jump down or step up into the vehicle. This is particularly dangerous here because the platform is not level at the end of the chutes. a good working tool to use in making a safety-check of this type. Using this technique alone in larger or more complicated facilities is not recommended because it does not give consideration to the elusive factors occurring there. It is not hard to evaluate large or complex facilities. The important thing is to evaluate each of the parts and then to determine safe handling on an overall basis. This can be done by using a simple diagram of the layout and observing the movement of live- stock at various points throughout the facility. This is supplemented by the inspection of various parts on the same basis as is done in the simple con- struction check. 10 The chart on page 12 illustrates how to use this diagram method. On a simple piece of graph paper draw the general outline of the facility to scale. This need not be done in exact detail, but it should be accurate enough to provide for proper analysis of movement and to use in marking critical areas. Keep the diagram as simple and uncluttered as possible. Use a scale which will allow for legible noting of hazards. Make the observations from a suf- ficient number of points to give a com- plete picture of traffic patterns. Be sure to observe carefully the critical areas -- chutes, corners, and turns. Don't forget to include the "special considerations" listed on page 8. 11 l^j>»>Q (t\ <* _ £ilU«^--v^/ X _l_ a ^ -11 ..4ui1-.. * >I> ■ e £ «fc— &L 35JE * PEM c d 0 F c : -l£f7v \JJ 'kJ *"=«. ~^t . — j: " ■ ■ 1 This scale diagram of an actual hog buying sta- tion shows how a simple chart of a facility can be made for use in a safety-check. Using graph paper makes it easy to draw to scale. In this chart, l/lO inch represents 2 feet. The chart and a note pad are all that is needed to make the check. Parts of the facility are labeled for reference. Hazards can be noted and then marked on the diagram to correspond to the actual location. (l — split side rail in pen "E", 2 — splintered cleat at top of loading chute, etc.). Using the chart and observing movement at various points will help locate the "hidden dangers" related to hazards and unsafe situa- tions obvious only during livestock movements. 12 Check Points for Safety Nails, Bolts, Fasteners, and Hasps ] Are they driven in or recessed? I 1 Do any show signs of wear because of animals rubbing against them? "2 Are they shiny or is animal hair sticking to them? ] Are those that can't be recessed out of the way of passing livestock? | Do the fasteners work? Railings, Slats, Posts, Sides, and Fences ] Are they solid and secure ? ] Are any splintered or split? I | Do splintered places have hair or wool sticking to them? ] Are corners rounded or protected? Pens and Alleys ] Are they clear and open- no lumber, wire, tools, or other material left lying around? ] Are they clean as well as sound? I | Are "pockets" cut off or protected? ] Are floors and surfaces in good repair ? 13 n How about slick or slippery spots in alleys and pens ? n Is the layout such that animals arenft confused or bewildered? If itTs complicated, is there any easy way to make it simple ? PI Are there provisions to take care of emergency hazards - sand for slippery spots, extra straw, and the like ? Chutes, Stairs, Ramps, Docks, and Inclines ] Are they good and solid - not shaky or rickety? "2 Are the sides in good repair? Are they such that outside distractions are minimized when the facility is used? If not, can this be remedied without too much trouble or cost? ~~) Is there an outside ramp for the handler to use in loading so he can get to the traffic jam wherever it is in the chute ? !l~~] Are the cleats clean and in good re- pair - not worn, split, or splintered? Are any missing? ~] Are platforms and docks wide enough? Is there provision to protect animals so they canTt fall or escape? ~] Are crossovers in good shape? Is there a place to put them out of the way when not in use ? 14 ~] Is the drive or exterior approach good? Can a truck back up with the bed even with the dock? Gates I | Do they swing freely - no sagging? I I Do they have good solid construc- tion with no split rails ? ] Are the edges rounded or protected? ] Do the fasteners work? Are they up out of the way ? I [ Is there a way to fasten the gate open as well as closed? Scales, Feeding Facilities, and Covered Pens I | Are the scales easy to reach and can animals get on and off easily? If not, can they be rearranged better? ~] Are the scales clean? I | Are feed and water troughs in good repair? Are they set up the best way? Do they interfere with traffic when animals are moved or sorted? 3 Is the roof of covered areas in good repair? (A leaky roof is almost worse than no roof -if there werenTt any, other safeguards would be taken.) I I Are there standby facilities and equipment for use in emergencies? Are they handy ? 15 Other Publications Available The following publications give de- tailed reports on much of the research on which this publication is based. De- tailed explanations of safety-checking techniques are also contained in some of these publications. Loss and Damage to Livestock in Transit in Midwestern and Western States. Marketing Research Re- port 247. Joseph E. Rickenbacker. Causes of Losses in Trucking Live- stock. Marketing Research Re- port 261. Joseph E. Rickenbacker. Handling Conditions and Practices Causing Bruises in Cattle. Market- ing Research Report 346. Joseph E. Rickenbacker. Loss and Damage in Handling and Transporting Hogs. Marketing Re- search Report 447. Joseph E. Rickenbacker. Losses From Handling Sheep and Lambs. Marketing Research Report 544. Joseph E. Rickenbacker. A copy of these publications maybe obtained upon request while a supply is available from — Information Division Farmer Cooperative Service U. S. Department of Agriculture Washington 25, D. C. * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1962 0 — 646260 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 2 5, D.C. - Price 15 cents UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 3 1262 08500 2235