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: Social dominance develops more slowly when young animals are kept in intact peer groups where they need not compete for resources. Learned generalizations may cause smaller and weaker animals to accept subordinate status readily when confronted with strangers that would be formidable opponents. Sexual hormones and sensitivity to them can influence the onset of aggression and status attained. After dominance orders are established, they tend to be stable in female groups but are less so in male groups. Psychological influences can affect dominance relationships when strangers meet and social alliances within groups may affect relative status of individuals. Whether status associated with agonistic behavior is correlated with control of space and scarce resources needs to be determined for each species and each kind of resource. When such correlations exists, competitive tests and agonistic behavior associated with gaining access to scarce resources can be useful to the observer in learning about dominance relationships rapidly. Examples are given to illustrate how estimates of social dominance can be readily attained and some strengths and weaknesses of the various methods.

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.