Abstract: Veterinary and management procedures often are aversive to the animals, resulting in physiological and behavioural stress reactions, which increase the risk of accidents and might lower performance. We investigated the effects of previous positive handling and of gentle interactions during the procedure on behaviour and heart rate in dairy cows during rectal palpation with sham insemination. Twenty cows were allocated randomly into two groups of 10 animals: handling, received additional positive handling over a period of four weeks by one person (handler); control, only routine handling by different caretakers. The week after the handling period, tests lasting 9 min, including 4 min rectal palpation, were carried out with each animal on four successive days in four situations in a balanced order: cow is alone during the test, with the handler, with an usual caretaker, or with an unknown person. Behaviour and heart rate were recorded. Previously handled animals had lower heart rate during tests (P<=0.05, n=19), kicked less when alone (P<=0.05, n=19) and tended to show less restless behaviour (P<=0.1, n=19). Cows were further calmed by gentle interactions during the test, but people differed remarkably. Cows showed less restless behaviour when gentled by the handler, both in the 4 min of rectal palpation and in the 9 min test period (each: P<=0.001, n=19). No significant stress reducing effect was found for the other two persons. In conclusion, stress reactions of cows during rectal palpation/insemination can be reduced by previous positive handling as well as by a person providing positive, gentle interactions during the procedure. The results underline the importance of positive, gentle interactions with the animals to enhance animal welfare and reduce the risk of accidents. They also show that people differ in the success to calm down the animals in aversive situations and indicate the need to investigate the characteristics responsible for the differences and identify the preconditions for a stress reducing effect in future research.

Abstract: From observations of intra-specific social grooming in cattle and studies on human stroking in other species, we hypothesised that cows' reactions to human stroking differ depending on the body regions being stroked. Moreover, we tested, whether cows `reactions to stroking change with the animals' experience of stroking. Sixty dairy cows were stroked in three different body regions, i.e. the withers, W, neck ventral, NV (both licked often in social grooming) and the lateral chest, LC (licked rarely), in a balanced order during 10-min sessions. Behavioural reactions and heart rate during stroking as well as reactions to the human just after stroking were recorded. Two test sessions were carried out with 3 weeks of treatment in-between. During this period, the cows were randomly allocated to four treatment groups: three groups received 5 min of daily stroking in either W, NV or LC and the last one (control group) was exposed to simple human presence. During stroking W and NV, cows showed longer neck stretching and ear hanging than during stroking LC (P < 0.001). Moreover, ear hanging was shown longer when W was stroked as compared to NV (P < 0.001), but neck stretching was observed longer during stroking NV as compared to W only after the treatment period (P < 0.01). In the first test session, more animals showed head shaking and head throwing during stroking W and NV than LC (P < 0.01), whereas in the second test session these behaviours were observed only in few animals. In the first test session heart rate was higher during stroking W than the other body regions (P <= 0.01). In the second test session, the lowest heart rate was found during stroking NV (P < 0.05). Finally, contact with the experimenter following stroking differed for the three body regions stroked in both test sessions (first: P = 0.06, second: P < 0.01); contact was shortest for LC. When comparing both test sessions, stretching the neck and ear hanging increased (P < 0.001), while head shaking and head throwing decreased (P < 0.05); there was no difference for heart rate and contact with the experimenter. The four treatments had no influence on reactions to stroking. To conclude, stroking of body regions often licked during social grooming led to more responses than stroking the one licked rarely. Some reactions, such as stretching the neck, are also observed during social licking. This suggests that cows may in part perceive human stroking of body regions often licked similarly to social licking. This knowledge could be of interest for an improvement in quality of human-cattle interactions.

Abstract: The term `leadership' has been used in several different senses, resulting in very different ways of identifying leaders and apparently inconsistent conclusions on how leadership is determined in herbivores. We therefore propose the following definitions: (i) a leader is the individual that is consistently the one who initiates long-distance, spontaneous group movements toward a new feeding site and (ii) long-distance spontaneous group movements are movements which happen when an animal changes activity and location and is immediately followed by a similar change in activity and location by other members of the group. Using these definitions, we tested for consistency of movement order across time and situation within a group of fifteen 2-year-old heifers. We found that the same individual was recorded as the very first animal in 48% of movements toward a new feeding site and could therefore be identified as the `leader'. We also showed that movement order when the animals entered an experimental plot, or progressed slowly through the field during a grazing bout, did not produce the same result. This method, which enables us to identify leaders in groups of animals at pasture, should improve our knowledge of how leadership is determined in grazing herbivores.

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.

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 = &#8722;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.