Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:09:51.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of previous handling experiences on responses of dairy calves to routine husbandry procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2012

M. Stewart ,
H. M. Shepherd ,
J. R. Webster ,
J. R. Waas ,
L. M. McLeay  and
K. E. Schütz
M. Stewart*
Affiliation:
AgResearch Ltd, Ruakura Research Centre, East Street, Private Bag 3123, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
H. M. Shepherd
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
J. R. Webster
Affiliation:
AgResearch Ltd, Ruakura Research Centre, East Street, Private Bag 3123, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
J. R. Waas
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
L. M. McLeay
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
K. E. Schütz
Affiliation:
AgResearch Ltd, Ruakura Research Centre, East Street, Private Bag 3123, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
*
†E-mail: mairi.stewart@agresearch.co.nz
Get access

Abstract

The nature of human–animal interactions is an important factor contributing to animal welfare and productivity. Reducing stress during routine husbandry procedures is likely to improve animal welfare. We examined how the type of early handling of calves affected responses to two common husbandry procedures, ear-tagging and disbudding. Forty Holstein–Friesian calves (n = 20/treatment) were exposed to one of two handling treatments daily from 1 to 5 weeks of age: (1) positive (n = 20), involving gentle handling (soft voices, slow movements, patting), and (2) negative (n = 20), involving rough handling (rough voices, rapid movements, pushing). Heart rate (HR), respiration rate (RR) and behaviour (activity, tail flicking) were measured before and after ear-tagging and disbudding (2 days apart). Cortisol was measured at −20 (baseline), 20 and 40 min relative to disbudding time. There were no significant treatment differences in HR, RR or behaviour in response to either procedure. However, the following changes occurred across both treatment groups. HR increased after disbudding (by 14.7 ± 4.0 and 18.6 ± 3.8 bpm, positive and negative, respectively; mean ± s.e.m.) and ear-tagging (by 8.7 ± 3.1 and 10.3 ± 3.0 bpm, positive and negative, respectively). After disbudding, there was an increase in RR (by 8.2 ± 3.4 and 9.3 ± 3.4 breaths/min, positive and negative, respectively), overall activity (by 9.4 ± 1.2 and 9.9 ± 1.3 frequency/min, positive and negative, respectively) and tail flicking (by 13.2 ± 2.8 and 11.2 ± 3.0 frequency/min, positive and negative, respectively), and cortisol increased from baseline at 20 min post procedure (by 10.3 ± 1.1 and 12.3 ± 1.1 nmol/l positive and negative, respectively). Although we recorded significant changes in calf responses during ear-tagging and disbudding, the type of prior handling had no effect on responses. The effects of handling may have been overridden by the degree of pain and/or stress associated with the procedures. Further research is warranted to understand the welfare impact and interaction between previous handling and responses to husbandry procedures.

Keywords

dairy calveshandlingwelfareear-taggingdisbudding
Type
Behaviour, welfare and health
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 5 , May 2013 , pp. 828 - 833
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Boissy, A, Bouissou, MF 1988. Effects of early handling on heifers’ subsequent reactivity to humans and to unfamiliar situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20, 259–273.Google Scholar
Boivin, X, Neindre, PL, Chupin, JM 1992a. Establishment of cattle–human relationships. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32, 325–335.Google Scholar
Boivin, X, Le Neindre, P, Chupin, JM, Garel, JP, Trillat, G 1992b. Influence of breed and early management on ease of handling and open-field behaviour of cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X, Garel, JP, Durier, C, Le Neindre, P 1998a. Is gentling by people rewarding for beef calves? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61, 1–12.Google Scholar
Boivin, X, Garel, JP, Mante, A, Le Neindre, P 1998b. Beef calves react differently to different handlers according to the test situation and their previous interactions with their caretaker. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55, 245–257.Google Scholar
de Passillé, AMB, Rushen, J, Ladewig, J, Petherick, C 1996. Dairy calves’ discrimination of people based on previous handling. Journal of Animal Science 74, 969–974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faulkner, PM, Weary, DM 2000. Reducing pain after dehorning in dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 2037–2041.Google Scholar
Fisher, AD, Verkerk, GA, Morrow, CJ, Matthews, LR 2002. The effects of feed restriction and lying deprivation on pituitary–adrenal axis regulation in lactating cows. Livestock Production Science 73, 255–263.Google Scholar
Graf, B, Senn, M 1999. Behavioural and physiological responses of calves to dehorning by heat cauterization with or without local anaesthesia. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62, 153–171.Google Scholar
Grøndahl-Nielsen, C, Simonsen, HB, Damkjer Lund, J, Hesselholt, M 1999. Behavioural, endocrine and cardiac responses in young calves undergoing dehorning without and with use of sedation and analgesia. Veterinary Journal 158, 14–20.Google Scholar
Guesgen, MJ, Beausoleil, NJ, Stewart, M (in press). Effects of early human handling on the pain sensitivity of young lambs. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia, doi:10.1111/j.1467-2995.2012.00746.x.Google Scholar
Heinrich, A, Duffield, TF, Lissemore, KD, Squires, EJ, Millman, ST 2009. The impact of meloxicam on postsurgical stress associated with cautery dehorning. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 540–547.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH 2003. Human–animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 185–198.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Price, EO, Borgwardt, R 1996. Behavioural responses of domestic pigs and cattle to humans and novel stimuli. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jago, JG, Krohn, CC, 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
Lensink, BJ, Raussi, S, Boivin, X, Pyykkönen, M, Veissier, I 2001. Reactions of calves to handling depend on housing condition and previous experience with humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70, 187–199.Google Scholar
Munksgaard, L, De Passillé, AM, Rushen, J, Thodberg, K, Jensen, MB 1997. Discrimination of people by dairy cows based on handling. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 1106–1112.Google Scholar
Murphey, RM, Duarte, FAM, Penedo, MCT 1980. Approachability of bovine cattle in pastures: breed comparisons and a breed × treatment analysis. Behavior Genetics 10, 171–181.Google Scholar
Pajor, EA, Rushen, J, de Passille, AM 2000. Aversion learning techniques to evaluate dairy cattle handling practices. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69, 89–102.Google Scholar
Schütz, KE, Hawke, M, Waas, JR, McLeay, LM, Bokkers, EAM, van Reenen, CG, Webster, JR, Stewart, M 2011. Effects of human handling during early rearing on the behaviour of dairy calves. Animal Welfare 21, 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzkopf-Genswein, KS, Booth-McLean, ME, McAllister, TA, Mears, GJ 2005. Physiological and behavioural changes in Holstein calves during and after dehorning or castration. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 85, 131–138.Google Scholar
Søndergaard, E, Jago, J 2010. The effect of early handling of foals on their reaction to handling, humans and novelty, and the foal–mare relationship. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, KJ, Mellor, DJ 2005. Dehorning and disbudding distress and its alleviation in calves. Veterinary Journal 169, 337–349.Google Scholar
Stewart, M, Stafford, KJ, Dowling, SK, Schaefer, AL, Webster, JR 2008. Eye temperature and heart rate variability of calves disbudded with or without local anaesthetic. Physiology and Behavior 93, 789–797.Google Scholar
Stewart, M, Stookey, JM, Stafford, KJ, Tucker, CB, Rogers, AR, Dowling, SK, Verkerk, GA, Schaefer, AL, Webster, JR 2009. Effects of local anesthetic and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug on pain responses of dairy calves to hot-iron dehorning. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1512–1519.Google Scholar
Tosi, MV, Hemsworth, PH 2002. Stockperson–husbandry interactions and animal welfare in extensive livestock industries. Conference at the 36th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, 6–10 August, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 129pp.Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C, Korff, J, Bucher, A 2004. Previous handling and gentle interactions affect behaviour and heart rate of dairy cows during a veterinary procedure. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85, 31–42.Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Boivin, X, Pedersen, V, Tosi, M-V, Janczak, AM, Visser, EK, Jones, RB 2006. Assessing the human–animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 185–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar