Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T14:01:53.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of gentle interactions with an experimenter during milking on dairy cows’ avoidance distance and milk yield, flow and composition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2017

S. Lürzel ,
K. Barth ,
I. Windschnurer ,
A. Futschik  and
S. Waiblinger
S. Lürzel*
Affiliation:
Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria
K. Barth
Affiliation:
Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries, Institute of Organic Farming, Trenthorst 32, 23847 Westerau, Germany
I. Windschnurer
Affiliation:
Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria
A. Futschik
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Statistics, JK University Linz, Altenberger Str. 69, 4040 Linz, Austria
S. Waiblinger
Affiliation:
Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria
*
†E-mail: stephanie.luerzel@vetmeduni.ac.at
Get access

Abstract

Cattle’s relationship with humans is a crucial factor regarding their welfare. In dairy cows, interactions with humans occur regularly during milking. We tested the effect of gentle interactions (stroking, talking in a gentle voice) during milking on avoidance distance and milk composition, yield and flow characteristics as well as behaviour during milking. Over the course of 15 days, an experimenter interacted gently with 14 German Holstein cows for 2 min during morning and evening milkings, totalling 60 min; the experimenter stayed at a similar distance to 12 control cows of the same breed for the same amount of time. There were no significant differences between the groups in behaviour during milking. Over the course of the experimental phase, avoidance distance at the feeding rack decreased significantly in stroked but not in control cows. The treatment did not improve any of the measures of milk composition, yield or flow; on the 1st day of the treatment, milk ejection was impaired in stroked cows, which points towards an effect of the novelty of the treatment. We conclude that gentle interactions during milking improve the relationship between cows and a human. Possible reasons for the absence of an effect on milk characteristics are that cows may not have perceived the interactions as positive or that a ceiling effect occurred due to otherwise optimal milking routines.

Keywords

avoidance distancecattlehumananimal relationshipmilk qualitymilk flow
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , February 2018 , pp. 340 - 349
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Bertenshaw, C and Rowlinson, P 2008. Exploring heifers’ perception of ‘positive’ treatment through their motivation to pursue a retreated human. Animal Welfare 17, 313–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertenshaw, C, Rowlinson, P, Edge, H, Douglas, S and Shiel, R 2008. The effect of different degrees of ‘positive’ human-animal interaction during rearing on the welfare and subsequent production of commercial dairy heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114, 65–75.Google Scholar
Boivin, X, Garel, JP, Durier, C and Le Neindre, P 1998. Is gentling by people rewarding for beef calves? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61, 1–12.Google Scholar
Boivin, X, Le Neindre, P, Garel, JP and Chupin, JM 1994. Influence of breed and rearing management on cattle reactions during human handling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Matthews, LR and Coleman, GJ 2000. Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66, 273–288.Google Scholar
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 2003. The effect of positive or negative handling on the behavioural and physiological responses of nonlactating heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84, 3–22.Google Scholar
Bruckmaier, RM and Wellnitz, O 2008. Induction of milk ejection and milk removal in different production systems. Journal of Animal Science 86, 15–20.Google Scholar
Hanna, D, Sneddon, IA, Beattie, VE and Breuer, K 2006. Effects of the stockperson on dairy cow behaviour and milk yield. Animal Science 82, 791–797.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Hansen, C 1987. The influence of inconsistent handling by humans on the behavior, growth and corticosteroids of young pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17, 245–252.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 2011. Human-livestock interactions: the stockperson and the productivity and welfare of intensively farmed animals. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL, Borg, S and Dowling, S 2002. The effects of cognitive behavioral intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ivemeyer, S, Knierim, U and Waiblinger, S 2011. Effect of human-animal relationship and management on udder health in Swiss dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 5890–5902.Google Scholar
Jago, JG, Krohn, CC and Matthews, LR 1999. The influence of feeding and handling on the development of the human-animal interactions in young cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62, 137–151.Google Scholar
Koolhaas, J, Bartolomucci, A, Buwalda, B, de Boer, S, Flügge, G, Korte, S, Meerlo, P, Murison, R, Olivier, B, Palanza, P, Richter-Levin, G, Sgoifo, A, Steimer, T, Stiedl, O, van Dijk, G, Wöhr, M and Fuchs, E 2011. Stress revisited: a critical evaluation of the stress concept. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 35, 1291–1301.Google Scholar
Krohn, CC, Jago, JG and Boivin, X 2001. The effect of early handling on the socialisation of young calves to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74, 121–133.Google Scholar
Lane, GT, Dill, CW, Armstrong, BC and Switzer, LA 1970. Influence of repeated oxytocin injections on composition of dairy cows’ milk. Journal of Dairy Science 53, 427–429.Google Scholar
Lürzel, S, Münsch, C, Windschnurer, I, Futschik, A, Palme, R and Waiblinger, S 2015. The influence of gentle interactions on avoidance distance towards humans, weight gain and physiological parameters in group-housed dairy calves. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 172, 9–16.Google Scholar
Lürzel, S, Windschnurer, I, Futschik, A and Waiblinger, S 2016. Gentle interactions decrease the fear of humans in dairy heifers independently of early experience of stroking. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 178, 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeon, VJ, Penry, JF, Endres, EL, de Bruijn, B, Kleinhans, A, Reinemann, DJ and Hernandez, LL 2016. Effect of increasing residual milk on milk yield and composition. Proceedings of the FIL-IDF Mastitis Conference, 7–9 September 2016, Nantes, France.Google Scholar
Munksgaard, L, de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J, Thodberg, K and Jensen, MB 1997. Discrimination of people by dairy cows based on handling. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 1106–1112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinheiro, J, Bates, D, DebRoy, S and Sarkar, D, R Development Core Team 2013. nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-113.Google Scholar
Proctor, HS and Carder, G 2014. Can ear postures reliably measure the positive emotional state of cows? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 161, 20–27.Google Scholar
R Core Team 2015. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
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, 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, de Passillé, AM and Munksgaard, L 1999. Fear of people by cows and effects on milk yield, behavior, and heart rate at milking. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 720–727.Google Scholar
Schmied, C, Boivin, X and Waiblinger, S 2008a. Stroking different body regions of dairy cows: effects on avoidance and approach behavior toward humans. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 596–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmied, C, Waiblinger, S, Scharl, T, Leisch, F and Boivin, X 2008b. Stroking of different body regions by a human: effects on behaviour and heart rate of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze Westerath, H, Gygax, L and Hillmann, E 2014. Are special feed and being brushed judged as positive by calves? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 156, 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skaug, H, Fournier, D, Bolker, B, Magnusson, A and Nielsen, A 2015. Generalized linear mixed models using ‘AD Model Builder’. R package version 0.8.3.2.Google Scholar
Stelwagen, K, Hopster, H, van der Werf, JTN and Blokhuis, HJ 2000. Short communication: effects of isolation stress on mammary tight junctions in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 48–51.Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Boivin, X, Pedersen, V, Tosi, MV, Janczak, AM, Visser, EK and Jones, RB 2006. Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 185–242.Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Coleman, GJ 2002. The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79, 195–219.CrossRefGoogle 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, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, D and Bruckmaier, RM 2005. Optimization of individual prestimulation in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welp, T, Rushen, J, Kramer, DL, Festa-Bianchet, M and de Passillé, AM 2004. Vigilance as a measure of fear in dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 1–13.Google Scholar
Windschnurer, I, Barth, K and Waiblinger, S 2009. Can stroking during milking decrease avoidance distances of cows towards humans? Animal Welfare 18, 507–513.Google Scholar