Individual differences in temperament of domestic dairy goats: constancy and change

Lyons, David M.; Price, Edward O.; Moberg, Gary P.

doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(88)80201-x

Cited by 159 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…What they all have in common is the presence of a human, either as a stationary or moving object [111] or as someone who actively restraints the animal [105]. When the animal is tested with a human the animals have often been habituated to the arena beforehand for anything from 3 days (e.g.…”

Section: Restraint and Human Fear Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses

Forkman¹,

Boissy

Meunier-Salaün

et al. 2007

Physiology & Behavior

740

626

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

FORKMAN, B., A., BOISSY, M.-C., SALAÜN, E., CANALI, AND R.B., JONES. A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. PHYSIOL. BEHAV. 000-000, 2007. Fear is arguably the most commonly investigated emotion in domestic animals. In the current review we attempt to establish the level of repeatability and validity found for fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep and goats, poultry and horses. We focus the review on the three most common types of fear tests: the arena test (open field), the novel object test, and the restraint test. For some tests, e.g. tonic immobility in poultry, there is a good and broad literature on factors that affect the outcome of the test, the validity of the test and its age dependency. However, there are comparatively few of these well defined and validated tests and what is especially missing for most tests is information on the robustness, i.e., what aspects can be changed without affecting the validity of the tests. The relative absence of standardized tests hampers the development of applied ethology as a science.

show abstract

Section: Restraint and Human Fear Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When the animal is tested with a human the animals have often been habituated to the arena beforehand for anything from 3 days (e.g. [111]) to up to 10 days [27].…”

Section: Restraint and Human Fear Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses

Forkman¹,

Boissy

Meunier-Salaün

et al. 2007

Physiology & Behavior

740

626

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Repeating the tests might be a way to decrease residual variation since studies in other farm species have reported consistent individual reactions over time (goats: [30]; heifers: [25]). Anyway, our results revealed a predominance of direct additive genetic effects in the expression of differences between genotypes, whereas the weak maternal additive effects encountered suggested there was little non-genomic maternal transmission for the tests run after weaning.…”

Section: Adjusted Means and P Values In Italicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic analysis of emotional reactivity in sheep: effects of the genotypes of the lambs and of their dams

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-A total of 1347 weaned lambs from eight genotypes were tested over five consecutive years: Romanov (ROM) and Lacaune (LAC) pure breeds, the two F1 crossbreeds (RL and LR) and the offspring of ewes from these four genotypes sired with Berrichon-du-Cher rams (BCF). The lambs were individually exposed to three challenging tests involving novelty, human contact and social isolation. Ten synthetic variables were used to express social reactivity (i.e., active vs. passive strategy), exploratory activity and reactivity to humans. BCF crossbreds were more active (i.e., high bleats, locomotion and attempts to escape) than purebreds and F1. In contrast, ROM expressed more passive responses (i.e., low bleats and vigilance postures) than LAC and BCF crossbreds. In addition, ROM approached a motionless human less and had longer flight distances to an approaching human than did LAC and BCF crossbreds. When restrained, ROM, and to a lesser extent B×ROM and B×LR, avoided human contact more than did LAC, RL and B×LAC. Most of these differences were explained by direct additive genetic effects while maternal influences or heterosis effects were rarely significant. The highest heritability was for high bleats (h 2 = 0.48). Females were more active and avoided human contact more than did males.genetics / emotional reactivity / human contact / social isolation / sheep

show abstract

“…It has also been shown that these traits often are consistent over time as well as across situations (Koolhaas et al, 1999). This implies that these behavioural traits form certain stress response patterns, which are adaptive (Lyons, et al, 1988;Lawrence, et al, 1991;van der Kooij, et al, 2002). So-called "bold" individuals are characterized as more aggressive when confronted with social challenges; they are more active in their attempt to reduce the affect of aversive stimuli and more willing to investigate unfamiliar objects compared to "shy" individuals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Divergence in behavioural responses to stress in two strains of rainbow trout () with contrasting stress responsiveness

Schjolden

Bäckström²,

Pulman³

et al. 2005

Hormones and Behavior

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to establish whether two lines of rainbow trout divergent for their plasma cortisol response to a standardized stressor would show consistent differences in their behavioural response to a range of challenging situations. Our results show that the high-and low-responding (HR and LR) lines of rainbow trout did not differ in the aggression shown towards an intruder or in their response to the introduction of a novel object to their home environment. However, there was a difference in behaviour between the two selection lines when they were exposed to two unfamiliar environments. These results suggest that the behaviour of the HR and LR fish differs when they are challenged in unfamiliar environments, while their behaviour does not differ when they are challenged in their home environment. These observations are in agreement with studies on mammals thatshow that individuals with reactive coping styles perform similarly to proactive animals when they are challenged in a familiar environment, while they show different behaviour when they are challenged in unfamiliar environments. Thus, these results provide further evidence that the HR and LR selection lines of rainbow trout exemplify the two different coping styles described in mammals.

show abstract

Individual differences in temperament of domestic dairy goats: constancy and change

Cited by 159 publications

References 30 publications

A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses

A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses

Genetic analysis of emotional reactivity in sheep: effects of the genotypes of the lambs and of their dams

Divergence in behavioural responses to stress in two strains of rainbow trout () with contrasting stress responsiveness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About