Horned and dehorned dairy cows differ in the pattern of agonistic interactions investigated under different space allowances

Lutz, Janika; Burla, Joan-Bryce; Gygax, Lorenz; Wechsler, Beat; Würbel, Hanno; Friedli, Katharina

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2019.05.008

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The role of horns in social dominance and in the monopolization of resources (mates, food, water, resting areas, etc.) is quite clear from behavioural studies [ 61 ], so the lack of consensus among farmers about this particular topic may reflect the heterogeneity of effects they observed, which coincides with contrasting evidences of different studies [ 62 ]. However, it can also be a consequence of the different types of herds on which the farmers’ opinions are based (only horned, only dehorned, or mixed herds), as their previous experiences limit their options to compare and observe the existing effects [ 60 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting Cattle Temperament in Beef Cow-Calf Systems: Insights from Farmers’ Perceptions about an Autochthonous Breed

Estévez-Moreno

Lama

Villarroel

et al. 2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding temperament is an important part of cattle production since undesirable temperament may cause serious problems associated with aggression, maternal care, and human safety. However, little is known about how farmers define or assess temperament, especially in autochthonous cattle breeds. The aim of this study was to explore perceptions of farmers about the temperament of the Pyrenean cattle breed with special attention to beef cow-calf systems in Spain. The methodology used to obtain the information was focus group discussions (FGD). Farmers defined temperament as a behavioural response to challenging situations imposed by human handling. Specific terms used were related to active or passive reactions to fear (e.g., “strong”, “aggressive”, “nervous”, “fearful”). The speed of response to stimuli was also important. Female temperament was thought to become more docile with age while bull temperament was more variable. Maternal aggressiveness was highlighted as a potential human safety problem, but also desirable in an extensively bred animal who may need to defend calves against predators. Anatomical characteristics were seen as unreliable predictors of temperament, while behavioural indicators were more widely used, such as “alertness”, which was a general trait of the breed, and “gaze”, which, when associated with an alert expression, suggests a potential threat. Sensory acuity, such as sight and smell, were thought to be related with temperament in some FGDs but there was no overall agreement as to whether different behavioural responses were due to differences in sensory acuity. The results from the study could be useful during training programs or in the development of new genetic selection schemes and evaluation protocols involving cattle temperament.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting Cattle Temperament in Beef Cow-Calf Systems: Insights from Farmers’ Perceptions about an Autochthonous Breed

Estévez-Moreno

Lama

Villarroel

et al. 2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A few studies have evaluated behavioral consequences of disbudding after the wounds have healed. Disbudded calves initiated more agonistic body contacts as adults than horned cattle (Knierim et al, 2015;Lutz et al, 2019), although the opposite pattern was reported during a food competition test (Reiche et al, 2020a). Compared to horned cattle, calves disbudded around 2 months of age had lower stress responses to an adrenocorticotropic hormone challenge at 11 months (Reiche et al, 2020b), and spent more time inactive at 9-12 months of age (Reiche et al, 2020a).…”

Section: Disbuddingmentioning

confidence: 93%

Early Life Painful Procedures: Long-Term Consequences and Implications for Farm Animal Welfare

Adcock

2021

Front. Anim. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Farm animals routinely undergo painful husbandry procedures early in life, including disbudding and castration in calves and goat kids, tail docking and castration in piglets and lambs, and beak trimming in chicks. In rodents, inflammatory events soon after birth, when physiological systems are developing and sensitive to perturbation, can profoundly alter phenotypic outcomes later in life. This review summarizes the current state of research on long-term phenotypic consequences of neonatal painful procedures in rodents and farm animals, and discusses the implications for farm animal welfare. Rodents exposed to early life inflammation show a hypo-/hyper-responsive profile to pain-, fear-, and anxiety-inducing stimuli, manifesting as an initial attenuation in responses that transitions into hyperresponsivity with increasing age or cumulative stress. Neonatal inflammation also predisposes rodents to cognitive, social, and reproductive deficits, and there is some evidence that adverse effects may be passed to offspring. The outcomes of neonatal inflammation are modulated by injury etiology, age at the time of injury and time of testing, sex, pain management, and rearing environment. Equivalent research examining long-term phenotypic consequences of early life painful procedures in farm animals is greatly lacking, despite obvious implications for welfare and performance. Improved understanding of how these procedures shape phenotypes will inform efforts to mitigate negative outcomes through reduction, replacement, and refinement of current practices.

show abstract

“…In most regions and countries of the EU-MSs, different grazing intensities (exercise or grazing pasture) are practised during the summer grazing period. The number of grazing hours each day and Reduction in agonistic interactions with conspecifics (Schneider, 2010, Haskell et al, 2013, Lutz et al, 2019 Reduction in integument damage (Keil et al, 2006, Schneider, 2010, Knierim et al, 2020 Weaknesses Increase in certain hoof diseases (Bielfeldt et al, 2005;O'Driscoll et al, 2008O'Driscoll et al, , 2009 Heat stress if free access to the indoor area is not provided (Gal án et al, 2018)…”

Section: Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aspects of the design and management, such as quality of the floor, hygiene management and space allowance (Bielfeldt et al, 2005;O'Driscoll et al, 2008, Lutz et al, 2019Schneider, 2010, Knierim et al, 2020 grazing days per year can vary markedly between countries and between farms within country (Reijs et al, 2013;Becker et al, 2018;Hennessy et al, 2020). Since around the 1990s, the proportion of farms offering access to pasture has been declining in several EU countries, and an increasing number of farms has been converting to all-year-housing systems (Reijs et al, 2013).…”

Section: Hazards Of Reduced Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare of dairy cows

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2023

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Scientific Opinion addresses a European Commission's mandate on the welfare of dairy cows as part of the Farm to Fork strategy. It includes three assessments carried out based on literature reviews and complemented by expert opinion. Assessment 1 describes the most prevalent housing systems for dairy cows in Europe: tie-stalls, cubicle housing, open-bedded systems and systems with access to an outdoor area. Per each system, the scientific opinion describes the distribution in the EU and assesses the main strengths, weaknesses and hazards potentially reducing the welfare of dairy cows. Assessment 2 addresses five welfare consequences as requested in the mandate: locomotory disorders (including lameness), mastitis, restriction of movement and resting problems, inability to perform comfort behaviour and metabolic disorders. Per each welfare consequence, a set of animal-based measures is suggested, a detailed analysis of the prevalence in different housing systems is provided, and subsequently, a comparison of the housing systems is given. Common and specific system-related hazards as well as management-related hazards and respective preventive measures are investigated. Assessment 3 includes an analysis of farm characteristics (e.g. milk yield, herd size) that could be used to classify the level of on-farm welfare. From the available scientific literature, it was not possible to derive relevant associations between available farm data and cow welfare. Therefore, an approach based on expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) was developed. The EKE resulted in the identification of five farm characteristics (more than one cow per cubicle at maximum stocking density, limited space for cows, inappropriate cubicle size, high on-farm mortality and farms with less than 2 months access to pasture). If one or more of these farm characteristics are present, it is recommended to conduct an assessment of cow welfare on the farm in question using animal-based measures for specified welfare consequences.

show abstract

Horned and dehorned dairy cows differ in the pattern of agonistic interactions investigated under different space allowances

Cited by 11 publications

References 25 publications

Revisiting Cattle Temperament in Beef Cow-Calf Systems: Insights from Farmers’ Perceptions about an Autochthonous Breed

Revisiting Cattle Temperament in Beef Cow-Calf Systems: Insights from Farmers’ Perceptions about an Autochthonous Breed

Early Life Painful Procedures: Long-Term Consequences and Implications for Farm Animal Welfare

Welfare of dairy cows

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About