Effects of handling aids on calf behavior

Citation
Cc. Croney et al., Effects of handling aids on calf behavior, APPL ANIM B, 69(1), 2000, pp. 1-13
Citations number
18
Categorie Soggetti
Animal Sciences
Journal title
APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR SCIENCE
ISSN journal
01681591 → ACNP
Volume
69
Issue
1
Year of publication
2000
Pages
1 - 13
Database
ISI
SICI code
0168-1591(200008)69:1<1:EOHAOC>2.0.ZU;2-7
Abstract
Effects of three different handling aids on calf behavior were determined. Group 1 calves were intensively-reared intact Holstein males (mean 180 days old); Group 2, extensively-reared beef-breed females (mean 230 days); Grou p 3, extensively-reared castrated beef-breed males (mean 253 days). Calves in each group were assigned to one of three handling aid treatments (n = 5 per treatment subgroup; total n = 45): electric prod (Prod), oar with rattl es (Oar), manual urging (Manual). Treatments were applied only as needed to encourage forward movement of calves through the length of a solid-sided s emicircular chute system. Number of treatment applications, length of time required to move through the entire chute system, and behavior during movem ent through the chute were recorded. An approach test was conducted 1 day b efore and 1 day and 1 week after chute tests to evaluate changes in behavio r due to handling aid application. During chute tests, Group 1 Prod calves required the fewest treatment applications (4.9) vs. 23.5 (Oar) or 13.5 (Ma nual), ran most often (1.40 times) vs. 0.20 times (Manual) or 0.33 times (O ar), and made contact with chute sides most often (1.8 times vs. 0.2 times (Manual) or 0.7 times (Oar), respectively tall P < 0.05). Similar trends we re observed for calves in Groups 2 and 3. There were no significant differe nces between behaviors observed during the approach tests conducted before and after handling aid treatments had been imposed. Regardless of treatment , intensively-reared Group 1 calves appeared markedly less fearful of handl ers during approach tests compared to extensively-reared calves in Groups 2 and 3, which demonstrated overt attempts to escape from the test facilitie s. One week after chute tests, 13 of 15 Prod calves from all three groups w alked, rushed, or backed > 1 m away from the handler when the prod was buzz ed but not applied, suggesting that the buzzing sound alone may have suffic ed to encourage movement by calves that had previously experienced both the sensation and sound associated with electric prodding. (C) 2000 Elsevier S cience B.V. All rights reserved.