Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T15:45:12.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring heifers' perception of ‘positive’ treatment through their motivation to pursue a retreated human

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

CE Bertenshaw  and
P Rowlinson
CE Bertenshaw*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
P Rowlinson
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: catherine.bertenshaw@ncl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This pilot study investigates dairy heifers' perception of ‘positive treatment’ by a human (stroking and brushing) through a test of appetitive motivation. The hypothesis was that positive treatment by a human results in heifers pursuing a human to seek further positive treatment. Thirty-seven dairy heifers were assigned to either minimal human contact or positive treatment during rearing for five minutes per week, for a total of four hours, between ages six to 24 months. Six months after treatment ceased, the heifers were tested in a suite of four sequential tests, conducted while free ranging in their home pen with a group of familiar conspecifics. The tests explored whether dairy heifers that received positive treatment had: 1) a lower flight distance than controls; 2) accepted initial positive treatment during the test; and (for those who voluntarily re-approached and interacted with the human after the human had retreated) whether this was due to 3) curiosity; or 4) motivation for further positive treatment. Positive treatment heifers had a lower flight distance in component 1 of the test and more of this group voluntarily approached the human compared to the control heifers. The positive treatment allowed more initial positive treatment (component 2) and sought further positive treatment in components 3 and 4. It is concluded that ‘positive’ treatment is rewarding for many heifers. It is suggested that positive treatment constitutes environmental enrichment of dairy cattle and can enhance cattle's quality of life and the human-animal relationship.

Keywords

animal welfareanthrozoologyheifershuman-animal relationshippositive treatmentre-approach test
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , August 2008 , pp. 313 - 319
Copyright
© 2008 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

Bekoff, M 1994 Cognitive ethology and the treatment of non-human animals: how matters of mind inform matters of welfare. Animal Welfare 3: 75–96Google Scholar
Bertenshaw, CE and Rowlinson, PR 2001a The influence of positive human-animal interaction during rearing on the welfare and subsequent production of the dairy heifer. In: Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science Conference. 9-11 April 2001, York, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertenshaw, CE and Rowlinson, PR 2001b The influence of positive human-animal interaction during rearing on the approach behaviour of the dairy heifer. In: Proceedings of the International Society of Applied Ethology. 9-11 April 2001, York, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertenshaw, CE 2002 The influence of positive human-animal interaction during rearing on the welfare and subsequent production of the dairy heifer. PhD Thesis, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertenshaw, CE, Rowlinson, PR, Edge, HL, Douglas, SB and Shiel, R 2007 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. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2007.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertenshaw, CE and Rowlinson, PR 2008 Exploring stock managers' perceptions of the human-animal relationship on dairy farms and an association with milk production. Anthrozoos, in pressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A and Bouissou, MF 1988 Effects of early handling on heifers' subsequent reactivity to unfamiliar situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 259–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A, Manteuffel, G, Jensen, MB, Moe, RO, Spruijt, B, Keeling, L, Winckler, C, Forkman, B, Dimitrov, I, Langbein, L, Bakken, M, Veissier, I and Aubert, A 2007 Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology and Behaviour 92(3): 375–397Google ScholarPubMed
Boivin, XJP, Garel, JP, Durier, C and Le Neindre, P 1998 Is positive treatment rewarding for beef calves? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61: 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, XJP, Lensink, J, Tallet, C and Veissier, I 2003 Stockmanships and farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 479–492Google 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: 273–288CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, JG 2003 The effect of positive or negative handling on the behavioural and physiological responses of non-lactating heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I 2006 The changing concept of animal science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100: 11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, AF and Broom, DM 1997 Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare. CABI: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D and Duncan, IJH 1998 ‘Pleasure’, ‘pains’ and animal welfare: toward a natural history of affect. Animal Welfare 7: 383–396Google Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 The interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12: 433–443Google Scholar
Hafez, ESE and Bouissou, MF 1975 The Behaviour of Cattle. In: Hafez ESE (ed) The Behaviour of Domestic Animals, 3rd Edition pp 203–245. Bailliere-Tindall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH and Barnett, JL 1987 Human-animal Interactions. WB Saunders: Philadelphia, USACrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH and Gonyou, HW 1997 Human Contact. In: Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO (eds) Animal Welfare pp 205–305. CABI: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 1998 Human-livestock Interactions. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH 2003 Human-animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81(3): 185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, B, Redbo, I and Svennersten-Sjaunja, K 1999 Effect of feeding before, during and after milking on behaviour and the hormone cortisol. Animal Science 68: 597–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkden, RD and Pajor, EA 2006 Using preference, motivation and aversion tests to ask scientific questions about animals' feeling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100: 29–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensink, BJ, Raussi, S, Boivin, XJP, Pyykkönen, M and Veissier, I 2000a Reactions of calves to handling depend on housing condition and previous experience with humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70: 187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensink, BJ, Fernandez, X, Boivin, XJP, Pradel, P, Le Neindre, P and Veissier, I 2000b The impact of gentle contacts on ease of handling, welfare, and growth of calves, and quality of veal meat. Journal of Animal Science 78: 1219–1226CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manning, A and Stamp Dawkins, M 2005 An Introduction to Animal Behaviour. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
McMillan, F 2005 The Concept of Quality of Life in Animals. In: McMillan, FD (ed) Mental Health and Well-being in Animals pp 183–200. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendl, M, Burman, O, Laughlin, K and Paul, E 2000 Animal memory and animal welfare. In: UFAW Symposium on Consciousness Cognition and Animal Welfare. 11-12 May 2000, Zoological Society of London, UKGoogle Scholar
Morgan, KN and Tromberg, CT 2007 Sources of stress in captivity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 262–302CrossRefGoogle 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
Pajor, EA, Rushen, J and de Passillé, AM 2003 Dairy cattle's choice of handling treatments in a Y-maze. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80: 93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, ES, Harding, EJ and Mendl, M 2005 Measuring emotional processes in animals: the utility of a cognitive approach. Neuroscience Biobehaviour Review 29: 469–491CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petherick, CJ 2005 Animal welfare issues associated with extensive livestock production: The northern Australian beef cattle industry. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92(3): 211–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raussi, S 2003 Human-cattle interactions in group housing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80: 245–262CrossRefGoogle 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: 215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousing, T and Wemelsfelder, F 2006 Qualitative assessment of social behaviour of dairy cows housed in loose housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101(1-2): 40–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Taylor, AA and de Passille, AM 1999a Domestic animals' fear of humans and its affect on their welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, de Passille, AM and Munksgaard, L 1999b Fear of people by cows and the effects on milk yield. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 720–727CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J, de Passille, AMB, Munksgaard, L and Tanida, H 2001 People as social factors in the world of farm animals. In: Keeling, LJ and Gonyou, HW (eds) Social Behaviour in Farm Animals pp 353–372. CAB International: Oxon, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schetini de Azevedo, C, Cipreste, CF and Young, R 2007 Environmental enrichment: A GAP analysis. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmeid, C, Waiblinger, S, Scharl, T, Leisch, F and Boivin, XJP 2008 Stroking of different body regions by a human: effects on behaviour and heart rate of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109(1): 25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, P 1979 Killing humans and killing animals. Inquiry 22: 145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinka, M 2006 How important is natural behaviour in animal farming systems? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100: 117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unshelm, J 1990 Introductory comments. In: Seabrook MF (ed) The Role of the Stockman in Livestock Productivity and Management. Report EUR 10982 ENGoogle 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(1): 123–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C, Korff, J and 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: 31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Boivin, XJP, Pederson, V, Tosi, M-V, Janczak, AM, Visser, KE and Jones, R 2007 Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 185–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF 2003 Introduction and overview. Animal Welfare: Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level 12: 429–431Google 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: 619–624Google Scholar