Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:00:54.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is the response to humans consistent over productive life in dairy cows?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

MJ Haskell ,
DJ Bell  and
JM Gibbons
MJ Haskell*
Affiliation:
SAC, Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK SAC, Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, West Mains Road EH9 3JG, UK
DJ Bell
Affiliation:
SAC, Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, West Mains Road EH9 3JG, UK
JM Gibbons
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, PO Box 10006947, #7 Highway, Agassiz, V0M, 1A0, British Columbia, Canada
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Dairy cattle have a high level of interaction with humans throughout their productive life. Welfare and productivity are affected if cows find these interactions aversive, so tests assessing fear of humans have been included in welfare assessment protocols. Practicality issues suggest that all animals on large farms cannot be tested. If a sub-sample is chosen, then animal factors affecting the response must be investigated. To assess the effect of age, 114 Holstein cows were tested at regular intervals across their productive lifetime. Animals were tested at 12-15 months of age, first breeding, prior to first calving, then at early, mid and late lactation for 1st and 2nd lactations and into their 3rd lactation. The test involved approaching each cow when standing in the passageway of the barn with sufficient space to retreat. Response was recorded on a 0-8 incremental scale, and several qualitative terms were scored using sliding scales from absence to full presence. There was a significant effect of age on response. Cows became more approachable with increasing age, up until the middle of the first lactation, with no further change beyond this stage. Cows became more at ease and less nervous with increasing age. Individual cow within-group rankings for tests at each stage showed correlation with rankings in the following stage. As this is a single-farm study, further research is necessary to assess interaction of factors such as housing, breed and quality of human handling on the long-term development of fear of humans. However, the results suggest that the age of the animal tested affects the response, and that animals of different age groups should be tested when a sub-sampling is required to assess welfare on large farms.

Keywords

animal welfaredairy cowfearhuman approachtemperamentwelfare assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue 3: Selected papers from the 5th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , August 2012 , pp. 319 - 324
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Matthews, LR and Coleman, GJ 2000 Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 273–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00097-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DairyCo 2011 www.dairyco.org.ukGoogle Scholar
DairyNZ 2011 www.dairynz.co.nz/dairystatisticsGoogle Scholar
Danish Cattle Federation 2011 http://www.vfl.dk/English/News/Lessthancowherds.htmGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, PO and Black, JM 2010 Behavioural syndromes in Steller's jays: the role of time frames in the assessment of behavioural traits. Animal Behaviour 80: 689–697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, J, Lawrence, AB and Haskell, M 2009 Responsiveness of dairy cows to human approach and novel stimuli. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116: 163–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.08.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, J, Lawrence, AB and Haskell, M 2011 Consistency of flight speed and response to restraint in a crush in dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 131: 15–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.01.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Tilbrook, AJ and Hansen, C 1989 The effects of handling by humans at calving and during milking on the behaviour and milk cortisol concentrations of primiparous dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 313–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(89)90026-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL and Borg, S 2000 Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 78: 821–2831CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, DCJ, Barker, ZE, Leach, KA, Bell, NJ, Whay, HR and Browne, WJ 2010 Sampling strategies for monitoring lameness in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 1970–1978. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazurek, M, McGee, M, Minchin, W, Crowe, MA and Earley, B 2011 Is the avoidance distance test for the assessment of animals’ responsiveness to humans influenced by either the dominant or flightiest animal in the group? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 132: 107–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munksgaard, L, de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J, Herskin, MS and Kristensen, AM 2001 Dairy cows’ fear of people: social learning, milk yield and behaviour at milking. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73: 15–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00119-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reale, D, Gallant, BY, LeBlanc, M and Festa-Bianchet, M 2000 Consistency of temperament in bighorn ewes and correlates with behaviour and life history. Animal Behaviour 60: 589–597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1530CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rousing, T and Waiblinger, S 2004 Evaluation of on-farm methods for testing the human-animal relationship in dairy herds with cubicle loose housing systems - test-retest and inter-observer reliability and consistency to familiarity of test person. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85: 215–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2003.09.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, de Passillé, AM and Munksgaard, L 1999 Fear of people by cows and the effects on milk yield, behavior and heat rate at milking. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 720–727. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75289-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, KMD, Langford, FM, Jack, MC, Sherwood, L, Lawrence, AB and Haskell, MJ 2009 Lameness prevalence and risk factors in organic and non-organic dairy herds in the UK. The Veterinary Journal 180: 95–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2008.03.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Boivin, X, Pedersen, V, Tosi, M, Janczak, AM, Visser, EK and Jones, RB 2006 Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 185–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00148-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Winckler, C, Brinkmann, J and Glatz, J 2007 Long-term consistency of selected animal-related welfare parameters in dairy farms. Animal Welfare 16: 197–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windschnurer, I, Schmied, C, Boivin, X and 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: 37–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar