| Home | << 1 >> |
|
Breuer, K., Hemsworth, P. H., & Coleman, G. J. (2003). The effect of positive or negative handling on the behavioural and physiological responses of nonlactating heifers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 84(1), 3–22.
Abstract: This experiment investigated the effects of positive and negative tactile handling on the stress physiology and behaviour of dairy heifers. Forty-eight 5-14-month-old nonlactating Holstein-Friesian heifers were allocated to one of two handling treatments, either positive or negative tactile handling, over four time replicates. Handling was imposed twice daily, 2-5 min per session and involved moving animals individually along a 64 m outdoor route. The negatively handled heifers took longer to approach within 1 and 2 m of a stimulus person in a standard test, than their positively handled counterparts (P<0.001) and had a greater flight distance to an approaching stimulus (P<0.001). The time taken by the heifers to approach within 1 and 2 m of a familiar person was similar to that taken to approach within 1 and 2 m of an unfamiliar person in the standard test (P<0.05). There was a tendency for heifers to have a greater flight distance from the approaching unfamiliar person than from the approaching familiar person (P=0.06). The negatively handled heifers had greater (P<0.05) increases in total cortisol concentrations 5, 10 and 15 min after exposure to a human and had higher (P<0.05) free cortisol concentrations in the afternoon than the positively handled heifers. It is concluded that the nature of the human contact affects the subsequent behavioural response of heifers to humans. This behavioural response may extend to other humans through the process of stimulus generalisation, although there was some evidence of moderate discrimination. Negative handling results in an acute stress response in the presence of humans and also leads to a chronic stress response. Further research into the effect of these stress responses on milk production and welfare in fearful cows in a commercial situation is suggested.
Keywords: Dairy heifer; Fear; Handling; Stress response; Milk production; Stimulus generalisation
|
|
Breuer, K., Sutcliffe, M. E. M., Mercer, J. T., Rance, K. A., Beattie, V. E., Sneddon, I. A., et al. (2003). The effect of breed on the development of adverse social behaviours in pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 84(1), 59–74.
Abstract: Tail-biting and other harmful social behaviours are a common problem on pig farms. The aims of the current experiment were (1) to investigate the genetic component of harmful social behaviours such as tail-biting by assessing breed differences, and (2) to further investigate the reliability and predictability of a test, [`]the tail-chew test', previously identified as potentially being capable of predicting a pig's predisposition for tail- and ear-biting. The behaviour of three pig breeds (Large White (LW), Landrace (LR), Duroc (DR)), with 100 pigs per breed, was observed in a [`]tail-chew test', and by observing the performance of harmful social behaviour directed to pen mates in flat deck pens after weaning. The tail-chew test, carried out on two consecutive days pre-weaning, involved observing the behaviour of individual pigs towards two suspended ropes. Pigs were weaned at 28 days and the occurrence of harmful social behaviour was recorded 4 weeks later over 2 consecutive days (1 h per day) using a group [`]period occurrence' scanning method. Breed had a significant effect on rope-directed behaviour in the tail-chew test and on harmful social behaviour. DR pigs interacted with the ropes in the tail-chew test more often (median 23.0 vs 19.0 and 17.5 times in 20 min, P<0.001) and for longer (31.0 vs 20.0 and 23.2 s, P<0.001) than LR and LW pigs, respectively. Although not significantly different from LW, DR pigs tended to direct more total harmful social behaviour towards pen mates than the other breeds. In particular, DR were observed in more total pig-directed biting of pen mates (median 9.0 vs 6.0 and 7.0, P<0.01) than LR and LW, and tended to nose pen mates more often than the other breeds (13.0 vs 11.0 and 10.0, P=0.06). LR pigs bit the ears of pen mates less often than LW and DR (4.0 vs 5.0 and 6.0, P<0.001). Belly-nosing activity was low, with a median of 0 for all breeds, but LR belly-nosed pen mates more often than Durocs (interquartile ranges 0-2.0 vs 0-1.0 and 0-1.0, P<0.01). The behaviour observed in the tail-chew test on day 1 correlated significantly with that observed on day 2 of the test (e.g. frequency of rope-directed behaviour rs=0.380,P<0.01). There were significant but weak correlations between rope-directed behaviour and the performance of some harmful social behaviours. The significant breed differences indicate some genetic contribution to expression of harmful social behaviours. However, the tail-chew test was found to be of limited ability to predict tail- and ear-biting under commercial conditions.
Keywords: Pig; Breed; Harmful social behaviour; Ear-biting; Tail-biting; Tail-chew test
|