Effect of previous handling experiences on responses of dairy calves to routine husbandry procedures

Abstract

The nature of human-animal interactions is an important factor contributing to animal welfare and productivity. Reducing stress during routine husbandry procedures is likely to improve animal welfare. We examined how the type of early handling of calves affected responses to two common husbandry procedures, ear-tagging and disbudding. Forty Holstein-Friesian calves (n 5 20/treatment) were exposed to one of two handling treatments daily from 1 to 5 weeks of age: (1) positive (n 5 20), involving gentle handling (soft voices, slow movements, patting), and (2) negative (n 5 20), involving rough handling (rough voices, rapid movements, pushing). Heart rate (HR), respiration rate (RR) and behaviour (activity, tail flicking) were measured before and after ear-tagging and disbudding (2 days apart). Cortisol was measured at 220 (baseline), 20 and 40 min relative to disbudding time. There were no significant treatment differences in HR, RR or behaviour in response to either procedure. However, the following changes occurred across both treatment groups. HR increased after disbudding (by 14.7 6 4.0 and 18.6 6 3.8 bpm, positive and negative, respectively; mean 6 s.e.m.) and ear-tagging (by 8.7 6 3.1 and 10.3 6 3.0 bpm, positive and negative, respectively). After disbudding, there was an increase in RR (by 8.2 6 3.4 and 9.3 6 3.4 breaths/min, positive and negative, respectively), overall activity (by 9.4 6 1.2 and 9.9 6 1.3 frequency/min, positive and negative, respectively) and tail flicking (by 13.2 6 2.8 and 11.2 6 3.0 frequency/min, positive and negative, respectively), and cortisol increased from baseline at 20 min post procedure (by 10.3 6 1.1 and 12.3 6 1.1 nmol/l positive and negative, respectively). Although we recorded significant changes in calf responses during ear-tagging and disbudding, the type of prior handling had no effect on responses. The effects of handling may have been overridden by the degree of pain and/or stress associated with the procedures. Further research is warranted to understand the welfare impact and interaction between previous handling and responses to husbandry procedures.

Effect of topical vapocoolant spray on perioperative pain response of unweaned calves to ear tagging and ear notching

“…In future studies, a positive sham-treated control group could be included to observe the effects of handling and external stressors on pain response scores. Stewart et al (2013) reported an increase in heart rate following ear tagging, but no significant changes in behaviour were noted. However, their study did not report on perioperative pain behaviour, whereas the present study did note discomfort during the procedure.…”

“…Therefore, each animal received two tags (one in each ear) and one ear notch; however, the order of procedures was randomized for each animal. Ears were tagged using a standard flexible tag applicator (Allflex Australia Pty Ltd; Landmark Goulburn, NSW, Australia) as per normal farm practice with the tag attachment in the middle of each ear between the two main cartilage ridges (Stewart et al 2013). Ear notching was performed by removing a section from the edge of the ear in a pattern unique to the property.…”

Welfare implication of measuring heart rate and heart rate variability in dairy cattle: literature review and conclusions for future research

“…Increased HR after ear-tagging was found in calves (Stewart et al, 2013) similarly during the 5 min following hot-iron disbudding both with and without local anaesthesia (Stewart et al, 2008a). However, in the latter case, prolonged HR elevation was found only without local anaesthesia (up to 3 h) and sympathetic measure (LF/HF ratio) only increased following disbudding without local anaesthesia suggesting the efficiency of analgesia.…”

“…Recently, several HR studies focused on the effect of an altered emotional state of the animals related to separation (Boissy and Le Neindre, 1997), weaning (Hopster et al, 1995), veterinary procedures (Waiblinger et al, 2004), early handling (Stewart et al, 2013), social interactions (Laister et al, 2011) and human contact (Rushen et al, 1999;Schmied et al, 2008a and.…”

The Psychology of Cows

“…There is also a dearth of evidence regarding individual differences in cows with regard to cross-species sociality, though there is some evidence for acclimation to human handlers who provide positive handling experiences and interactions (Petherick, Doogan, Holroyd, Olsson, & Venus, 2009), which is unfortunately nonnormative (i.e., branding, disbudding, rough handling of infant and adult cows; see Schwartzkopf-Genswein, Stookey, & Welford, 1997;Stewart et al, 2013). Investigations to better understand individual differences in sociality and gregariousness in cows would be an important advancement in cow personality research.…”