**4. Discussion**

There is a close relationship between handling ruminants pre-slaughter and the quantity and quality of the meat they produce [5]. Several initiatives, including activities focused on the impact of pre-slaughter conditions on beef cattle (facilities, equipment, and handling procedures), have been carried out in Uruguay and in the region to promote animal welfare and improve meat quality [20,21]. The results of the present study revealed that the use of a flag to move cattle had the best efficiency. The animals entered the truck quickly and calmly. In 95 (39.3%) out of 242 truckloads only a flag was used to ge<sup>t</sup> the animals on the truck. In 58 (24%) cases also shouting was added. This is a substantial difference to the previous findings [3] when in 75% of the cases electric cattle prods were used and in 40% shouting (no flags were used at that time). Electric prods and sticks are used less in the present study. Presumably, the drivers started to use a flag only, but added other devices when the cattle did not enter the truck quickly. These results can be explained, in part, by the diversity of dissemination, extension and training courses on animal welfare concepts and meat quality delivered to the stakeholders [22,23]. However, in the present study, more than 90% of the animals had one or more bruises and this is around 30% more than in the previous study, in which the same scoring system for carcass bruising was used [10].

The extensive way beef cattle are raised in Uruguay is such that animals do not come in contact with humans very often. Transportation is, therefore, very stressful. The use of flags to move cattle is believed to be less traumatic than the use of other devices [24]. Therefore, it was surprising to observe more bruised animals than in the previous study, where flags were not used, but electric cattle prods [3]. Although in the present study, more than 90% of the animals had one or more bruises and this is more than in the past, in which the same scoring system was used for the carcass bruises, there may have been some overvaluation of some bruises by the observers, as found by some authors [25,26]. They found "slight" inter-observer agreemen<sup>t</sup> for the number of bruises scored per anatomical site and "fair" for the severity grade of the bruises.

Nevertheless, no bruises of grade 3 were found, the deepest and most severe ones. This finding matches results found recently. The third quality audit of beef was conducted in Uruguay [27] by other authors in the country [28], and no bruises of this degree of severity were observed. It should be noted that in the present study, data were collected on only one slaughterhouse, whereas in the previous studies several abattoirs were visited [3,10,28]. Some researchers state that the presence of carcass bruises is affected by characteristics of the animals, the conditions of transport, the handling of the animals, and the waiting time at the slaughterhouse, more than the loading and unloading process [19,29,30]. Although the presence of horns has been reported as a problem in several countries, the results of some authors [31] sugges<sup>t</sup> that there is no significant relationship between the prevalence of horns and carcass bruising, handling being a critical point. We agree that further research is necessary to evaluate the causality this problem.

When loading cattle, the interpretation of truck drivers regarding handling methods of loading was associated with the duration. A shorter loading time was considered to be good loading. The correlation between the time loading, unloading and the use of different devices is probably due to the fact that people, handling cattle, tended to start using devices if loading and unloading halted. Of all the devices used during unloading, the use of flags only had a significantly lower time unloading cattle.

Interventions at these stages have considered training animal handlers and transporters by showing them the consequences of bad handling with audiovisual material prepared on site. Research results have helped to improve animal welfare and support the development of new legislation or to make changes in the existent legislation related to animal welfare [4,20].

The way to achieve the cultural change necessary to improve animal welfare, operator safety and profitability of the sector is through training and knowledge transfer. The results show that the joint efforts of all the institutions and the active role of the World Organisation for animal health (OIE) Collaborating Center, a consortium of Chile, Mexico, and Uruguay, have been more effective, as have the continuing education programs implemented by universities [32].

Previous reports and results of this study indicate that the transport of beef cattle to the slaughterhouse is accompanied by impaired animal welfare. A tool to measure animal welfare is to look at bruises on the carcass. These bruises are an incentive to improve the transport conditions and animal welfare because this prevents economic losses. Strict guidelines on human-animal interactions and on the use of devices are important issues. From this point of view, it is good to observe that many drivers used no device (10.6%) or only a flag (39.3%) to load the cattle onto the truck.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, Stella Maris Huertas and Frank J.C.M. van Eerdenburg; Data curation, Rick E.A.M. Kempener; Formal analysis, Rick E.A.M. Kempener and Frank J.C.M. van Eerdenburg; Investigation, Rick E.A.M. Kempener and Frank J.C.M. van Eerdenburg; Methodology, Stella Maris Huertas; Resources, Stella Maris Huertas, Rick E.A.M. Kempener and Frank J.C.M. van Eerdenburg; Supervision, Frank J.C.M. van Eerdenburg; Writing – original draft, Stella Maris Huertas and Rick E.A.M. Kempener; Writing – review & editing, Stella Maris Huertas and Frank J.C.M. van Eerdenburg.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors would like to thank Frigorifico Tacuarembo-Marfrig a slaughter house of Uruguay for having allowed the field work.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
