Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T19:29:28.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the animals' relationship to humans in tied dairy cows: between-experimenter repeatability of measuring avoidance reactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

S Waiblinger ,
C Mülleder ,
C Schmied  and
I Dembele
S Waiblinger*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, Department of Veterinary Public Health and Food Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria
C Mülleder
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, Department of Veterinary Public Health and Food Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria
C Schmied
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, Department of Veterinary Public Health and Food Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria
I Dembele
Affiliation:
IPR / IFRA Bamako, Mali
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: susanne.waiblinger@vu-wien.ac.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tests for assessing the animal-human relationship in tied dairy cows have been used in experimental research, but the reliability and feasibility of the measures in the on-farm context has not been studied yet. Therefore we investigated the between-experimenter repeatability of avoidance reactions in dairy cows housed in tie-stall systems. Nine farms in Austria with 15-60 tethered dairy cows were visited. Two to three out of four experimenters were testing the avoidance reaction of the individual cows in a balanced order. Cows were approached slowly from the front and the reactions recorded on an 11-point score. The avoidance reaction of each cow was assessed twice by each experimenter and averaged. Also, a farm value per experimenter was calculated (median). Repeatability between experimenters was assessed within farms and at farm level by calculating Spearman rank correlation coefficients. The average between-experimenter correlations within farms ranged from 0.37 to 0.88. At farm level, median of scores ranged from 2.5 to 6.75 and correlated moderately to highly between experimenters from 0.65 to 0.80. Testing the animals on all farms was relatively simple.

The between-experimenter repeatability within farms differed substantially and reasons for this merit further investigation. At farm level repeatability was moderate to sufficiently high. Due to the high feasibility, this measure seems to be promising and should be developed further.

Keywords

animal welfarecattlehuman-animal relationshipon-farm assessmentrepeatabilitytie stall
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , May 2007 , pp. 143 - 146
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brinkmann, J, Winter, C and Winckler, C 2004 Where can avoidance distance be recorded on-farm in dairy cattle? In: Hänninen L and Valros A (eds) Proceedings of the 38th International Conference of the ISAE p 198. ISAE: Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
De Rosa, G, Tripaldi, C, Napolitano, F, Saltalamacchia, F, Grasso, F, Bisegna, V and Bordi, A 2003 Repeatability of some animal-related variables in dairy cows and buffoloes. Animal Welfare 12: 625–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 1998 Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity of Intensively Farmed Animals. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1993 Measuring behaviour. An introductory guide. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munksgaard, L, De Passillé, AM, Rushen, J, Herskin, MS and Kristensen, AM 2001 Dairy cows' fear of people: social learning, milk yield and behaviour at milking. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73: 15–26CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rousing, T and Waiblinger, S 2004 Evaluation of on-farm methods for testing the human-animal relationship in dairy herds with cubicle loose housing systems – Test-retest and inter-observer reliability and consistency to familiarity of test person. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85: 215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Taylor, AA and De Passillé, AM 1999 Domestic animals' fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmied, C, Waiblinger, S and Boivin, X 2004 Grooming imitation by a human: the effect on cow-human relationship. Proceedings of the 2nd Joint East and West Central Europe p 27. ISAE: Tihany, HungaryGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S and Menke, C 2003 Influence of sample size and experimenter on reliability of measures of avoidance distance in dairy cows. Animal Welfare 12: 585–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Coleman, G 2002 The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 195–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Fölsch, DW 2003 Influences on the avoidance and approach behaviour of dairy cows towards humans on 35 farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Boivin, X, Pedersen, V, Tosi, M, Janczak, AM, Visser, EK and Jones, RB 2006 Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 185–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winckler, C, Capdeville, J, Gebresenbet, G, Hörning, B, Roiha, U, Tosi, M and Waiblinger, S 2003 Selection of parameters for on-farm welfare assessment protocols in cattle and buffalo. Animal Welfare 12: 619–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar