Relationships among temperament, behavior, and growth during performance testing of bulls.

Excitable cattle are dangerous to personnel and have reduced individual performance. The aim of this study was to 1) identify objective criteria for evaluating bull temperament and 2) examine relationships among temperament, behavior, and performance of bulls during an 84-d performance test. Angus bulls ( = 60) were reared in 6 pens based on BW and age. Pen scores (PS; 1 = docile and 5 = very aggressive) were assigned on d -1, 27, 55, and 83. Exit velocity (EV), BW, time to exit the chute, and order through the chute were recorded on d 0, 28, 56, and 84. The ADG was calculated for the 84-d test period, and ultrasound data and frame score calculations were recorded on d 84. Dataloggers measured steps taken, lying time, number of lying bouts, and lying bout duration of bulls ( = 27; 3 pens) from d 3 to 28 and d 59 to 84. Bulls with a d -1 PS of 1 or 2 were categorized as calm (PScalm; = 40), whereas bulls with a PS of 3 or 4 were categorized as excitable (PSexcitable; = 20). Bulls were separated into 2 groups based on the bottom 20 EV (EVcalm) and top 20 EV (EVexcitable) on d 0. Mixed model ANOVA (SAS 9.3) was used to compare groups for the two temperament assessment methods, behavior, and growth performance. Mean EV decreased ( < 0.05) by d 84. Total lying time from d 3 to 28 was greater ( < 0.05) for PScalm bulls when compared with PSexcitable bulls. However, total lying time from d 59 to 84 was greater ( < 0.05) for EVexcitable bulls when compared with EVcalm bulls. Regardless of initial contemporary group assignment, all bulls exited the chute slower ( < 0.001) on d 84 than on d 0. The PSexcitable bulls had greater ( < 0.01) frame scores and greater ADG than PScalm bulls. The PSexcitable bulls had more ( < 0.01) backfat than PScalm bulls. However, ribeye area was smaller ( < 0.01) in EVexcitable bulls than EVcalm bulls. Based on these results, bulls appeared to have habituated over the testing period. Additionally, the potential lack of innate temperament variation may have attributed to the little difference seen among the behavioral and performance data. Therefore, temperament should be reassessed within a novel environment with new handlers to differentiate between the bull's true temperament and its ability to habituate.