Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T00:27:43.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Skin Stimulated Induction of Mouth Movements in Cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

H B Simonsen
H B Simonsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Animal Health, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Bülowsvej 13, 1870 Frederiksberg C, DK Denmark
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.

Six animals in a free-ranging herd often Aberdeen Angus cattle showed mouth movements induced by skin stimulation by grooming of the sacro-coccygeal region with a horse grooming brush. Three of the animals reacted by mouth movements similar to stereotypic tongue rolling. Twenty-two (ie 37 %) of 59 animals at a cattle show reacted by mouth movements when firmly scratched by hand on the skin in the sacro-coccygeal region and among these animals, significantly more beef breed cattle reacted compared to dairy breeds (P<0.02).

Stereotypic mouth movements of cattle including tongue-rolling, bar-biting and bar-licking are regularly observed in dairy cows and calves. Although it is generally accepted that these kinds of behaviour are behavioural stress reactions, scientific evidence related to the mechanisms behind these oral movements is scarce. In relation to animal welfare science these behavioural stress reactions ewe important because knowledge of the aetiology of the abnormal behaviour is necessary for the prevention and cure of the symptoms. The present demonstration of skin stimulated induction of mouth movements in cattle, similar to tongue-rolling, therefore seems interesting, as the discovery of such a behaviour may be used in further research on oral stereotypies in cattle.

Keywords

animal welfarecattleinduction of mouth movementsskin stimulationstereotypiestongue-rolling
Type
Short Communication
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , May 1994 , pp. 129 - 134
Copyright
© 1994 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Brownlee, A 1951 Studies in the behaviour oí domestic cattle. Veterinary Record 63: 443 (Abstract)Google Scholar
Cronin, G M, Wiepkema, P R and van Ree, J M 1986 Endorphins implicated in stereotypies of tethered sows. Experientia 42: 198–199Google ScholarPubMed
Dodman, N H, Shuster, L, Court, M H and Dixon, R 1987 Investigation into the use of narcotic antagonists in the treatment of a stereotypic behavior pattern (crib-biting) in the horse. American Journal of Veterinary Research 48: 311–319Google ScholarPubMed
Dodman, N H, Shuster, L, White, S D, Court, M H, Parker, D and Dixon, R 1988 Use of narcotic antagonists to modify stereotypic self-licking, self-chewing, and scratching behavior in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Association 193: 815–819Google ScholarPubMed
Feser, P 1875 Apomoiphinum hydrochloratum, ein Heilmittel gegen die sog. Lecksucht der Rinder, Schafe und Schweine. Zeitschrift für praktische Veterinärwissenschaft: 111–113Google Scholar
Hafez, ESE and Bouissou, M F 1975 The behaviour of cattle. In Hafez, ESE (ed) The Behaviour of Domestic Animals, 3rd edition pp 203–245. Baillière Tindall: LondonGoogle Scholar
Keverne, E B, Martensz, N D and Tuite, B 1989 Beta-endorphin concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid of monkeys are influenced by grooming relationships. Psychoneuroendocrinology 14(1 and 2): 155–161CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kooyman, J, Wierenga, H K and Wiepkema, P R 1991 Development of abnormal oral behaviour in group housed veal calves: effects of roughage supply. In Metz, J H M and Groenstein, C M (eds) New Trends in Veal Calf Production pp 54–58. Pudoc: WageningenGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C J C 1993 Cattle Behaviour pp 137–140. Farming Press: IpswichGoogle Scholar
Redbo, I 1992 Stereotypies in Dairy Cattle and their Relation to Confinement, Production-related Factors, Physiological Reactions, and Adjoining Behaviours. PhD thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, StockholmGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Lawrence, A B and Terlouw, EMC 1993 The motivational basis of stereotypies. In Lawrence, A B and Rushen, J (eds) Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare pp 41–64. CAB International: WallingfordGoogle Scholar
Sambraus, H H 1969 Das soziale Lecken des Rindes. Zeitschrift för Tierpsychologie 26: 805810Google Scholar
Sato, S, Sako, S and Maeda, A 1991 Social licking patterns in cattle (Bos taurus): influence of environmental and social factors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharman, D F and Stephens, D B 1974 The effect of apomorphine on the behaviour of farm animals. Journal of Physiology (London) 242: Proceedings 25P-27PGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonsen, H B 1979 Grooming behaviour of domestic cattle. Scandinavian Journal of Veterinary Science 31: 1–5Google ScholarPubMed
Spruijt, B M, van Hooff, J A R A M and Gispen, W H 1992 Ethology and neurobiology of grooming behaviour. Physiological Reviews 72: 825–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar