|
|
Boray, J. C. (1969). Experimental fascioliasis in Australia. Adv Parasitol, 7, 95–210.
|
|
|
|
Dumont, B., Rossignol, N., Loucougaray, G., Carrère, P., Chadoeuf, J., Fleurance, G., et al. (2012). When does grazing generate stable vegetation patterns in temperate pastures? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 153, 50–56.
Abstract: The stability of grazing-induced spatial patterns of vegetation was analyzed at two spatial scales (25 m × 20 m areas and 1.6 m × 0.8 m grids) in pastures of contrasting productivity (maximum standing biomass: 130–800 gDM/m2). At both scales, the mosaic of grazed and ungrazed patches was modeled as a Boolean process, calculating cross-variograms to quantify the temporal stability of grazing patterns and its links with local floristic composition were tested. The scale at which stability of vegetation patterns took place in two successive years depended on pasture productivity. Inter-annual stability of large-scale patterns mainly occurred in extensively used fertile pastures grazed by cattle, and in pastures grazed by horses. Less-fertile grasslands were mainly characterized by a fine-scale stability of grazing patterns. Stable fine-scale patterns were often related to the local abundance of legumes and forbs. Stable large-scale patterns of grazing within lightly grazed productive grasslands could result in divergent local vegetation dynamics, which can be seen as an opportunity for restoring biodiversity in fertile grasslands.
|
|
|
|
Whistance, L. K., Sinclair, L. A., Arney, D. R., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2009). Trainability of eliminative behaviour in dairy heifers using a secondary reinforcer. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 117(3-4), 128–136.
Abstract: Soiled bedding influences cleanliness and disease levels in dairy cows and there is no evidence of an inherent latrine behaviour in cattle. If cows were trained to use a concrete area of the housing system as a latrine, a cleaner bed could be maintained. Thirteen group-housed, 14-16-month-old Holstein-Friesian heifers, were clicker trained with heifer-rearing concentrate pellets as a reward. Training was carried out in four phases. (Phase 1) Association of feed reward with clicker, criterion: 34/40 correct responses. (Phase 2) Simple task (nose-butting a disc) to reinforce phase 1 association, criterion: 17/20 correct responses. (Phase 3) Association of eliminative behaviour with reward where criterion was four sessions with only one incorrect response: criteria for each heifer in phases 1-3 were set using binomial tests. (Phase 4) Shaping eliminative behaviour to occur on concrete. Possible responses were, eliminating on concrete (C) or straw (S), or moving from one substrate to another immediately before eliminating: C --> S, S --> C. Heifers were rewarded for the desired behaviours C and S --> C and ignored when S and C --> S occurred. If learning was achieved, C should increase as C --> S decreased and S --> C should increase as S decreased: tested with Spearman rank correlations. All heifers achieved criterion by day 4 of phase 1 (P = 0.001); day 1 of phase 2 (P = 0.001) and day 10 of phase 3 (P < 0.009). Responses changed throughout phase 3 beginning with (i) looking at the trainer whilst voiding then moving to trainer after the click, and later including (ii) moving to trainer immediately before- or (iii) during voiding. No relationship was found between S and S --> C (rs = -0.14; P = 0.63) or C and C --> S (rs = -0.33; P = 0.25). All group members eliminated more often on concrete (580) than on straw (141) but four heifers with consistently longer lying bouts also showed more C --> S before lying down (Mann-Whitney, P = 0.007). The present study is believed to be the first reported work to show that cattle can be trained to show an awareness of their own eliminative behaviour. This was not successfully shaped to latrine behaviour, however, and it is suggested that floor type may not have been a sufficiently salient cue. Voiding on straw occurred largely with response C --> S (0.73) and general behaviour suggested that this was strongly linked to lying patterns of individual heifers.
|
|
|
|
Mazurek, M., McGee, M., Minchin, W., Crowe, M. A., & Earley, B. (2011). Is the avoidance distance test for the assessment of animals' responsiveness to humans influenced by either the dominant or flightiest animal in the group? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 132(3-4), 107–113.
Abstract: A previously described (Windschnurer et al., 2009) avoidance distance test was used to assess animals’ fear of humans in order to quantify the human–animal relationship (HAR). This study investigated the influence of the dominant and flightiest animals within a group on the responsiveness of animals during the avoidance distance test. Eighty-eight pregnant heifers comprised of four different genotypes were used (22 animals per genotype): Limousin × Holstein-Friesian, Limousin × Simmental, Charolais × Limousin, and Charolais × Simmental. Sixty of the 88 heifers were group housed (n = 5) into 12 pens with 3 pens per breed, while 28 heifers were singly housed (seven heifers per breed). A reactivity test was performed on days 10, 18, 25 and 30 post-housing on the singly housed heifers, and then on the group housed heifers, on the same days, to calculate a reactivity score. On days 33 and 37 flight and dominance tests, respectively, were performed to identify the flightiest and the dominant animal within each group. On day 41, an avoidance test, measuring both the avoidance distance towards a familiar and an unfamiliar human, was performed on all heifers. No difference (P > 0.05) in reactivity scores was found between the genotypes, between pens for the group housed heifers or between singly housed and group housed heifers (P = 0.28). The avoidance distance (AD) of singly (S) housed heifers towards a familiar (F) (ADSF) human was shorter (P < 0.001) than the avoidance distance of group (G) housed heifers towards an unfamiliar human (ADSU). The ADSF and ADGF were correlated with the ADSU and ADGU (R = 0.87 for singly housed heifers; R = 0.61 for group housed heifers, P < 0.001). For the singly housed heifers, no correlation was observed between reactivity score and ADSF (R = 0.36, P = 0.18), whereas the reactivity score and ADSU were correlated (R = 0.68, P = 0.004). For the group housed heifers no significant correlation was detected between the reactivity score and ADGF (R = 0.18, P = 0.22) or ADGU (R = −0.11, P = 0.39). No influence of the most dominant animal and the flightiest animals was found on the behaviour of the group in term of avoidance distance and reactivity (P > 0.05). It is concluded that the assessment of the fear of the animals towards humans using the avoidance test at the feed bunk may be useful for singly and group housed heifers and that the leaders of a group such as the flightiest animal or the dominant animal did not influence the avoidance distance test.
|
|
|
|
Hagen, K., & Broom, D. M. (2004). Emotional reactions to learning in cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 85(3), 203–213.
Abstract: It has been suggested that during instrumental learning, animals are likely to react emotionally to the reinforcer. They may in addition react emotionally to their own achievements. These reactions are of interest with regard to the animals' capacity for self-awareness. Therefore, we devised a yoked control experiment involving the acquisition of an operant task. We aimed to identify the emotional reactions of young cattle to their own learning and to separate these from reactions to a food reward. Twelve Holstein-Friesian heifers aged 7-12 months were divided into two groups. Heifers in the experimental group were conditioned over a 14-day period to press a panel in order to open a gate for access to a food reward. For heifers in the control group, the gate opened after a delay equal to their matched partner's latency to open it. To allow for observation of the heifers' movements during locomotion after the gate had opened, there was a 15m distance in the form of a race from the gate to the food trough. The heart rate of the heifers, and their behaviour when moving along the race towards the food reward were measured. When experimental heifers made clear improvements in learning, they were more likely than on other occasions to have higher heart rates and tended to move more vigorously along the race in comparison with their controls. This experiment found some, albeit inconclusive, indication that cattle may react emotionally to their own learning improvement.
|
|
|
|
Holzapfel, W. H., & Botha, S. J. (1988). Physiology of Sporolactobacillus strains isolated from different habitats and the indication of in vitro antagonism against Bacillus species. Int J Food Microbiol, 7(2), 161–168.
Abstract: In an ecological study only low numbers of Sporolactobacillus were found in habitats such as the faeces of herbivores, the rumen of cattle and the final waste water of an abattoir. Their presence in the final waste water of an abattoir indicates their possible association with food, and, more specifically, with meat. Differences were found in some physiological characteristics. One isolate (L2404) differed from the authentic Sporolactobacillus ATCC 15538 by its inability to ferment inulin, its growth in presence of 6.5% NaCl and in 0.2% tellurite, by the isomer(s) of lactic acid produced and the mol% G + G in the DNA. One Sporolactobacillus isolate (L2407) showed antagonism against Bacillus cereus, Bacillus cereus var, mycoides, Bacillus megaterium and Bacillus subtilis.
|
|
|
|
Bradley, B. L. (1980). Animal flavor types and their specific uses in compound feeds by species and age. Fortschr Tierphysiol Tierernahr, (11), 110–122.
|
|
|
|
Forbes, A. B. (1993). A review of regional and temporal use of avermectins in cattle and horses worldwide. Vet Parasitol, 48(1-4), 19–28.
Abstract: Ivermectin and abamectin are two members of the group of parasiticides known as the avermectins; ivermectin was first registered as an injectable treatment for cattle in 1981. Since then, abamectin has been registered for cattle and ivermectin for horses. The relative popularity of the avermectins amongst farmers and veterinarians can be attributed to their spectrum of activity, convenience, wide margin of safety and the improved health and performance of stock following their use. Patterns of use in grazing animals apply equally to the avermectins as to other antiparasitics, particularly anthelmintics; these are based on a knowledge of epidemiology integrated with practical management considerations. For cattle, programs are commonly aimed at control of abomasal nematodes of the genera Ostertagia and Haemonchus. Use of avermectins is largely strategic in cattle, treatments being favored at the end of the period of transmission of these parasites; this frequently coincides with housing, entry into a feedlot or movement to another pasture. Simultaneous control of important ectoparasites at this time is an added benefit. Prophylactic use of avermectins at pasture is primarily targeted at the young first season grazing animal. In horses, a bimonthly treatment schedule during the period of risk has proved effective in helping prevent adverse effects of the main target parasites, including large and small strongyles and stomach bots. These patterns of use can be applied to the evaluation of the potential for avermectin residues in feces to have impact on pasture ecology. The evidence presented suggests that any effects are temporally and spatially limited. After more than a decade of practical use, there is no indication that avermectins have had a significant impact on pasture ecology and the environment.
|
|
|
|
Hazem, A. S. (1978). [Collective review: Salmonella paratyphi in animals and in the environment]. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 85(7), 296–303.
|
|
|
|
Stober, M., & Geiger, J. F. (1975). [Lamenting “moaning” in domestic cattle]. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 82(1), 10–13.
|
|
