How Can Cattle Be Toilet Trained? Incorporating Reflexive Behaviours into a Behavioural Chain

Abstract

Untrained cattle do not defecate or urinate in defined locations. The toilet training of cattle would allow urine and faeces to be separated and stored, reducing climate-damaging emissions and improving animal health. In a proof-of-concept study, we evaluated a novel protocol for toilet training in cattle. Five heifer calves (and yoked controls) were trained in the voluntary (operant) behaviours of a toileting chain. Then, reflexive urinating responses were incorporated into the chain, with toileting signalled by a tactile (vibratory) stimulus. On 95% of occasions, the calves inhibited/interrupted urination when receiving the stimulus, and on 65% of these occasions, reinitiated urination in the latrine. Furthermore, during 63% of urinations in the latrine, the calves oriented to the reward location before any food was delivered, providing additional evidence that calves can be successfully toilet trained with food rewards. Yoked controls failed to learn most of the operant elements and all the reflexive responses of toilet training. The results show that reflexive behaviours can be incorporated into voluntary toileting sequences with cattle and extend the range of species that can be toilet trained. Future refinement of the protocol to allow training under practical farm conditions offers the potential to mitigate climate damage and improve animal health.

Learned control of urinary reflexes in cattle to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions

“…The mean slope of the learning curves (Figure 1A) calculated from the fi rst urination accompanied by reward orientation to the last urination) was 0.73 ± 0.08 (± SE) for the calves that orientated to the reward, which was signifi cantly steeper than that for the calves that did not reliably orientate to the reward (0.27 ± 0.03; W = 60, p = 0.001). These results support published evidence that urination behavior in cattle can be modifi ed by rewards 5,6 and demonstrated the foundation step for backward chaining of toileting in a majority of the calves.…”

“…For urination, toileting requires self-control and coordination of a complex chain of behaviors including awareness of bladder fullness, overriding of excretory refl exes, selection of a latrine and intentional relaxation of the external urethral sphincter 3 . Attempts to train toileting in cattle have so far been only partly successful [4][5][6] , even though their excretion and associated neurophysiological control are similar to those in species capable of toileting 3 . Similarly, very young infants have been considered incapable of self-initiated voiding, but they can be taught with extensive training 7 .…”

Implementation of a Pig Toilet in a Nursery Pen with a Straw-Littered Lying Area

“…One way to achieve this is to reward the desired behaviour through positive reinforcement. This was already studied in cattle [ 20 , 21 ] but not yet in pigs.…”

Graduate Student Literature Review: What is known about the eliminative behaviors of dairy cattle?

“…Dairy cattle have the capacity to be toilet trained under the correct conditions, but the practicality of managing these processes for industry settings should be considered (Dirksen et al, 2020a). Following these ideas, Dirksen et al (2020b) outlined a behavioral chain for toilet training urination. Five female calves around 91 d of age were first operant trained for voluntary behaviors of responding to a vibration signal to enter a latrine, a flashing light to signal a food reward, and the empty reward bowl to signal leaving the latrine.…”

“…Calves were successful in responding to the vibration signal, in that 95% of sequences initiated outside of the latrine led to latrine entry, with 65% of these sequences resulting in urination in the latrine. Sequences where calves began in and urinated in the latrine were considered ambiguous, due to the inability to accurately determine whether their placement was due to anticipating urination or just wanting to be near the reward, and occurred 31% of the time (Dirksen et al, 2020b).…”