Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:43:04.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of on-farm veal calves’ responses to unfamiliar humans and potential influencing factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2012

H. Leruste ,
E. A. M. Bokkers ,
L. F. M. Heutinck ,
M. Wolthuis-Fillerup ,
J. T. N. van der Werf ,
M. Brscic ,
G. Cozzi ,
B. Engel ,
C. G. van Reenen  and
B. J. Lensink
H. Leruste*
Affiliation:
Groupe ISA Lille, Equipe CASE, 48 Boulevard Vauban, 59046 Lille Cedex, France
E. A. M. Bokkers
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
L. F. M. Heutinck
Affiliation:
Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Center, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
M. Wolthuis-Fillerup
Affiliation:
Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Center, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
J. T. N. van der Werf
Affiliation:
Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Center, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
M. Brscic
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
G. Cozzi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
B. Engel
Affiliation:
Biometris, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 16, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
C. G. van Reenen
Affiliation:
Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Center, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
B. J. Lensink
Affiliation:
Groupe ISA Lille, Equipe CASE, 48 Boulevard Vauban, 59046 Lille Cedex, France
*
†E-mail: helene.leruste@isa-lille.fr
Get access

Abstract

The human–animal relationship is an important component of the welfare of farm animals and for this reason animal responsiveness tests to humans are included in on-farm welfare assessment schemes that provide indicators for this. However, apart from the behaviour of stockpersons towards their animals, other factors may also influence animals’ reactivity to humans as observed through behavioural tests, which can add a further layer of complexity to the interpretation of test results. Knowledge of these factors may help a better interpretation of differences from one farm to another in the outcome of human–animal relationship tests, and may provide clues for improving the relationship between animals and humans. The main objective of this study was to identify whether management or environmental factors could influence the outcome of human–animal relationship tests in veal calves. Two tests were performed when calves were aged 14.9 ± 1.6 (SD) weeks in 148 veal farms: the voluntary approach of an unfamiliar human standing at the feeding fence and the reaction towards an unfamiliar human who entered the home pen and tried to touch each calf in a standardised way (Calf Escape Test (CET) – score 0 to 4). Questionnaires were filled in and interviews with the stockpersons were performed in order to obtain information on stockpersons, management, animal and building characteristics. The latency to touch an unfamiliar human at the feeding fence was significantly correlated with the CET scores. Total number of calves on the farm, space allowance, breed, environmental enrichment, stockperson's experience and season of observation influenced the percentage of calves that scored 0 in CET (i.e. calves that could not be approached). Type of milk distribution, type of breed and number of calves per stockperson influenced the percentage of calves that scored 4 in CET (i.e. calves could be touched). For both CET0 and CET4, the level of self-reported contacts by the stockperson (analysed only on the French subset of 36 farms) did not influence the results. This paper concludes that according to the tests conducted on veal calves on commercial farms, factors such as milk distribution method, breed of the calves or the level of experience of stockpersons with veal farming can have an impact on the results of tests focusing on human–animal relationships.

Keywords

calveshuman–animal relationshipavoidancerisk factor analysis
Type
Behaviour, welfare and health
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 12 , December 2012 , pp. 2003 - 2010
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Hennessy, DP, McCallum, TH, Newman, EA 1994. The effects of modifying the amount of human contact on behavioural, physiological and production responses of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41, 87–100.Google Scholar
Boivin, X, Garel, JP, Mante, A, Le Neindre, P 1998. Beef cattle react differently to different handlers according to the test situation and their previous interaction with their caretaker. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55, 245–257.Google Scholar
Boivin, X, Le Neindre, P, Garel, JP, Chupin, JM 1994. Influence of breed and rearing management on cattle reactions during human handling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 115–122.Google Scholar
Boivin, X, Le Neindre, P, Chupin, JM, Garel, JP, Trillat, G 1992. Influence of breed and early management on ease of handling and open-field behaviour of cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32, 313–323.Google Scholar
Bokkers, EAM, Leruste, H, Heutinck, LFM, Wolthuis-Fillerup, M, van der Werf, JTN, Lensink, BJ, van Reenen, CG 2009. Inter-observer and test–retest reliability of on-farm behavioural observations in veal calves. Animal Welfare 18, 381–390.Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM, Keeling, LJ 2007. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16, 225–228.Google Scholar
Coleman, GJ, Hemsworth, PH, Hay, M, Cox, M 2000. Modifying stockperson attitudes and behaviour towards pigs at a large commercial farm. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66, 11–20.Google Scholar
De Passillé, AM, Rushen, J 2005. Can we measure human–animal interactions in on-farm animal welfare assessment? Some unresolved issues. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 193–209.Google Scholar
English, PR 1991. Stockmanship, empathy and pig behaviour. Pig Veterinary Journal 26, 56–66.Google Scholar
GenStat Committee 2000. In Reference manual. Procedure Library PL12 (ed. RG Payne and GM Arnold), VSN International, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL 1991. The effects of aversively handling pigs either individually or in groups on their behaviour, growth and corticosteroids. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 61–72.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ 2010. Human–livestock interactions: the stockperson and the productivity and welfare of intensively farmed animals. CAB International, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Coleman, GJ 1993. The human–animal relationship in agriculture and its consequences for the animal. Animal Welfare 2, 33–51.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL 1994. Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 349–362.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL, Borg, S 2000. Relationships between human–animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 78, 2821–2831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL, Borg, S, Dowling, S 2002. The effects of cognitive behavioral intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jago, JG, Krohn, CC, Matthews, LR 1999. The influence of feeding and handling on the development of the human–animal interactions in young cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62, 137–151.Google Scholar
Lensink, BJ, Veissier, I, Florand, L 2001. The farmer's influence on calves’ behaviour, health and production of a veal unit. Animal Science 72, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensink, BJ, Boissy, A, Veissier, I 2000a. The relationship between attitude and behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Annales de Zootechnie 49, 313–327.Google Scholar
Lensink, BJ, Boivin, X, Pradel, P, Le Neindre, P, Veissier, I 2000b. Reducing veal calves’ reactivity to people by providing additional human contact. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1213–1218.Google Scholar
Lensink, BJ, Leruste, H, De Bretagne, T, Bizeray-Filoche, D 2009. Sow behaviour towards humans during standard management procedures and their relationship to piglet survival. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundborg, GK, Svensson, EC, Oltenacu, PA 2005. Herd-level risk factors for infectious diseases in Swedish dairy calves aged 0–90 days. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 68, 123–143.Google Scholar
Martin, P, Bateson, P 1993. Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCullagh, P, Nelder, JA 1989. Generalized linear models, 2nd edition. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
Murphey, RM, Moura Duarte, FA, Torres Penedo, MC 1981. Responses of cattle to humans in open spaces: Breed comparisons and approach-avoidance relationships. Behaviour and Genetics 11, 37–48.Google Scholar
Pearce, GP, Paterson, AM, Pearce, AN 1989. The influence of pleasant and unpleasant handling and the provision of toys on the growth and behaviour of male pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23, 27–37.Google Scholar
Raussi, S 2003. Human–cattle interactions in group housing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80, 245–262.Google Scholar
Rousing, T, Ibsen, B, Sorensen, JT 2005. A note on: on-farm testing of the behavioural response of group-housed calves towards humans; test–retest and inter-observer reliability and effect of familiarity of test person. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 94, 237–243.Google Scholar
Rushen, J, Taylor, AA, de Passillé, AM 1999. Domestic animals’ fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 285–303.Google Scholar
Scott, K, Laws, DM, Courboulay, V, Meunier-Salaün, MC, Edwards, SA 2009. Comparison of methods to assess fear of humans in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118, 36–41.Google Scholar
Tallet, C, Veissier, I, Boivin, X 2006. A note on the consistency and specificity of lambs’ responses to a stockperson and to their photograph in an arena test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98, 308–314.Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C, Coleman, G 2002. The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79, 195–219.Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C, Fölsch, DW 2003. Influences on the avoidance and approach behaviour of dairy cows towards humans on 35 farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Boivin, X, Pedersen, V, Tosi, MV, Janczak, AM, Visser, EK, Jones, RB 2006. Assessing the human–animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 185–242.Google Scholar
Windschnurer, I, Schmied, C, Boivin, X, Waiblinger, S 2008. Reliability and inter-test relationship of tests for on-farm assessment of dairy cows’ relationship to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114, 37–53.Google Scholar