Abstract: We examined the effects of the presence of an unfamiliar, a gentle or an aversive handler during milking on behaviour and milk yield, and whether cows can learn to approach or avoid a handler by observing the neighbouring cow?s responses. In Experiment 1, Danish Friesian cows (n=16) were treated gently (offering hay and concentrates) by one handler and aversively (hit every 15s on the head with the hand) by another handler for six periods of 2min each. The two handlers wore different coloured overalls, and each cow received either gentle or aversive treatment in the first week and the other treatment the following week. All cows kept a longer distance to the aversive than to the gentle handler in a 1min test after treatment. Milk yield and residual milk did not differ when the aversive or the gentle handler was standing in front of the cow during milking, although the cows moved their legs and tail less when the aversive handler was present. When an unfamiliar person was standing in front of the cows during milking, behaviour and milk yield did not differ from control milkings. Cows and heifers (n=10) that had observed their neighbours receiving gentle treatment by one handler and aversive treatment from another handler did not differ in the distance they kept from these two handlers. In Experiment 2, cows (n=15) that had observed the neighbours receiving a gentle treatment (eight times for 2min) kept a shorter distance to that handler after treatment of their neighbours, and the distance they kept was correlated with the distance kept by the neighbouring cows. This suggests that responses of observer cows may be affected by the responses of the cows being treated. The cows rapidly learned to avoid an aversive handler, but although the cows showed clear avoidance response to the aversive handler there was no effect on milk yield when the aversive handler was present at milking.

Abstract: Day-time (08.30-05.30 h) time budgets were generated from 55 light and 55 draft late pregnancy mares housed in tie stalls from ten pregnant mares' urine (PMU) farms using continuous video recording. Equal numbers of light and draft mares were filmed on each farm during the months of February and early March. The actions recorded included eating, drinking, resting (standing and recumbent), standing active, and interactions between horses (aggressive and non-aggressive). In addition, the presence and duration of stereotypic behaviours such as cribbing, head bobbing, weaving, and wood/bar chewing were recorded. Light mares spent significantly more time feeding and significantly less time standing active and standing resting (P<0.05, Rank Sum Two Sample Test). However, the time budget of both groups fell within the range of previously published activity budgets of feral horses. Therefore, the differences noted may not be clinically relevant. Three light and two draft mares performed repetitive behaviours at a level that is considered stereotypic (at >5% of their daily time budget). There was no significant difference in the number of horses performing stereotypies between light and draft mares. When the time budgets of both light and draft mares who performed stereotypies were pooled, the activities did not differ significantly from their counterparts who did not perform stereotypies. Because of the overall low prevalence of stereotypies and the fact that time budgets were similar to free-range horses, we believe that the management practice of keeping large numbers of pregnant mares in tie stalls is rational and that the welfare of mares is sound. Furthermore, we did not see a behavioural justification for a bias in the weight class of horses used within this management system.

Abstract: A group of animals can only move cohesively, if group members “somehow” reach a consensus about the timing (e.g., start) and the spatial direction/destination of the collective movement. Timing and spatial decisions usually differ with respect to the continuity of their cost/benefit distribution in such a way that, in principle, compromises are much more feasible in timing decision (e.g. median preferred time) than they are in spatial decisions. The consequence is that consensus costs connected to collective timing decisions are usually less skewed amongst group members than are consensus costs connected to spatial decisions. This, in turn, influences the evolution of decision sharing: sharing in timing decisions is most likely to evolve when conflicts are high relative to group cohesion benefits, while sharing in spatial decisions is most likely to evolve in the opposite situation. We discuss the implications of these differences for the study of collective movement decisions.

Abstract: Besides focusing on the adaptive significance of collective movements, it is crucial to study the mechanisms and dynamics of decision-making processes at the individual level underlying the higher-scale collective movements. It is now commonly admitted that collective decisions emerge from interactions between individuals, but how individual decisions are taken, i.e. how far they are modulated by the behaviour of other group members, is an under-investigated question. Classically, collective movements are viewed as the outcome of one individual's initiation (the leader) for departure, by which all or some of the other group members abide. Individuals assuming leadership have often been considered to hold a specific social status. This hierarchical or centralized control model has been challenged by recent theoretical and experimental findings, suggesting that leadership can be more distributed. Moreover, self-organized processes can account for collective movements in many different species, even in those that are characterized by high cognitive complexity. In this review, we point out that decision-making for moving collectively can be reached by a combination of different rules, i.e. individualized (based on inter-individual differences in physiology, energetic state, social status, etc.) and self-organized (based on simple response) ones for any species, context and group size.