Beef calves react differently to different handlers according to the test situation and their previous interactions with their caretaker

Self Cite

Numerous studies have investigated the emotional effects of various acute, potentially alarming events in animals, but little is known about how an accumulation of emotional experiences affects fearfulness. Fearfulness is a temperament trait that characterizes the propensity of an individual to be frightened by a variety of alarming events. The aim of this study was to investigate a putative alteration of fearfulness in sheep repeatedly exposed to various aversive events. Forty-eight 5-month-old female lambs were used. Over a period of 6 weeks, 24 of them (treated group) were exposed daily to various unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events related to predatory cues, social context and negative handling that can occur under farming conditions. The other 24 lambs (control group) were housed in standard farming conditions (predictable food distribution and group handling). Fearfulness (behavioural and physiological responses) was assessed before and after the treatment period by subjecting the lambs to three standardized tests: individual exposure to suddenness and then to novelty in a test arena, and group exposure to a motionless human in the home pen. As biomarkers of stress, leukocyte counts, heart rate and cortisol concentrations were measured in the lambs in their home pens. Before the treatment, the emotional responses of the groups did not differ. After the treatment, treated lambs approached the human less often, had less contact with the novel object and vocalized more than controls in individual tests, suggesting that long-term exposure to unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events increases subsequent fearfulness in sheep. In addition, treated lambs had lower leukocyte counts, heart rate and cortisol levels, pointing to a chronic stress state. These findings suggest that increased fearfulness may be used as a sign of chronic stress in farm animals.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To test these three hypotheses, complementary tests on reactivity to humans could be performed with an unfamiliar (Hemsworth et al, 1987;Boivin et al, 1998). Gentling sheep reduces fear of humans, but it seems that this effect may not be generalizable to other fear situations (Dwyer and Bornett, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term exposure to unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events alters fearfulness in sheep

Destrez

Deiss

Leterrier

et al. 2013

Self Cite

“…Animals may be in a situation of conflict between curiosity and fear when an unknown person is present (de Passillé and Rushen, 2005). During the CET, a human is clearly provoking a reaction of the animal and it is likely that those that can be touched are not fearful of humans (Boivin et al, 1998). However, animals that cannot be touched may not necessarily be frightened (Waiblinger et al, 2003), and tests like our CET might be a mixture of measuring fear (extreme reactions), disinterest (moderate reactions) and lack of interest (Scott et al, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of on-farm veal calves’ responses to unfamiliar humans and potential influencing factors

Leruste

Bokkers

Heutinck

et al. 2012

The human-animal relationship is an important component of the welfare of farm animals and for this reason animal responsiveness tests to humans are included in on-farm welfare assessment schemes that provide indicators for this. However, apart from the behaviour of stockpersons towards their animals, other factors may also influence animals' reactivity to humans as observed through behavioural tests, which can add a further layer of complexity to the interpretation of test results. Knowledge of these factors may help a better interpretation of differences from one farm to another in the outcome of human-animal relationship tests, and may provide clues for improving the relationship between animals and humans. The main objective of this study was to identify whether management or environmental factors could influence the outcome of human-animal relationship tests in veal calves. Two tests were performed when calves were aged 14.9 6 1.6 (SD) weeks in 148 veal farms: the voluntary approach of an unfamiliar human standing at the feeding fence and the reaction towards an unfamiliar human who entered the home pen and tried to touch each calf in a standardised way (Calf Escape Test (CET) -score 0 to 4). Questionnaires were filled in and interviews with the stockpersons were performed in order to obtain information on stockpersons, management, animal and building characteristics. The latency to touch an unfamiliar human at the feeding fence was significantly correlated with the CET scores. Total number of calves on the farm, space allowance, breed, environmental enrichment, stockperson's experience and season of observation influenced the percentage of calves that scored 0 in CET (i.e. calves that could not be approached). Type of milk distribution, type of breed and number of calves per stockperson influenced the percentage of calves that scored 4 in CET (i.e. calves could be touched). For both CET0 and CET4, the level of self-reported contacts by the stockperson (analysed only on the French subset of 36 farms) did not influence the results. This paper concludes that according to the tests conducted on veal calves on commercial farms, factors such as milk distribution method, breed of the calves or the level of experience of stockpersons with veal farming can have an impact on the results of tests focusing on human-animal relationships.

“…Positive handling can improve the ease of handling and reduce fear responses in cattle (Boissy and Bouissou, 1988;Boivin et al, 1992b). Some animals discriminate between humans based on previous positive and negative experiences (de Passillé et al, 1996;Munksgaard et al, 1997;Boivin et al, 1998b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of previous handling experiences on responses of dairy calves to routine husbandry procedures

Stewart

Shepherd

Webster

et al. 2013

The nature of human-animal interactions is an important factor contributing to animal welfare and productivity. Reducing stress during routine husbandry procedures is likely to improve animal welfare. We examined how the type of early handling of calves affected responses to two common husbandry procedures, ear-tagging and disbudding. Forty Holstein-Friesian calves (n 5 20/treatment) were exposed to one of two handling treatments daily from 1 to 5 weeks of age: (1) positive (n 5 20), involving gentle handling (soft voices, slow movements, patting), and (2) negative (n 5 20), involving rough handling (rough voices, rapid movements, pushing). Heart rate (HR), respiration rate (RR) and behaviour (activity, tail flicking) were measured before and after ear-tagging and disbudding (2 days apart). Cortisol was measured at 220 (baseline), 20 and 40 min relative to disbudding time. There were no significant treatment differences in HR, RR or behaviour in response to either procedure. However, the following changes occurred across both treatment groups. HR increased after disbudding (by 14.7 6 4.0 and 18.6 6 3.8 bpm, positive and negative, respectively; mean 6 s.e.m.) and ear-tagging (by 8.7 6 3.1 and 10.3 6 3.0 bpm, positive and negative, respectively). After disbudding, there was an increase in RR (by 8.2 6 3.4 and 9.3 6 3.4 breaths/min, positive and negative, respectively), overall activity (by 9.4 6 1.2 and 9.9 6 1.3 frequency/min, positive and negative, respectively) and tail flicking (by 13.2 6 2.8 and 11.2 6 3.0 frequency/min, positive and negative, respectively), and cortisol increased from baseline at 20 min post procedure (by 10.3 6 1.1 and 12.3 6 1.1 nmol/l positive and negative, respectively). Although we recorded significant changes in calf responses during ear-tagging and disbudding, the type of prior handling had no effect on responses. The effects of handling may have been overridden by the degree of pain and/or stress associated with the procedures. Further research is warranted to understand the welfare impact and interaction between previous handling and responses to husbandry procedures.