Responses of cattle to humans in open spaces: Breed comparisons and approach-avoidance relationships

Murphey, Robert M.; Duarte, Francisco Alberto de Moura; Penedo, M. C. T.

doi:10.1007/bf01065826

Cited by 54 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Crossbred calves generally tended less to avoid humans compared with dual-purpose breeds and dairy breed calves, while compared with dairy breed calves, dual-purpose breed calves demonstrated also less avoidance of humans. These findings are in accordance with previous studies demonstrating potential differences in reactivity to humans between beef cattle breeds (Murphey et al, 1981;adult cattle: Boivin et al, 1992;calves: Boivin et al, 1994). However, it is generally believed that beef cattle are more fearful of humans than dairy breeds (Murphey et al 1981), but this could be partially due to a lower level of contact with humans rather than a genetic effect.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…These findings are in accordance with previous studies demonstrating potential differences in reactivity to humans between beef cattle breeds (Murphey et al, 1981;adult cattle: Boivin et al, 1992;calves: Boivin et al, 1994). However, it is generally believed that beef cattle are more fearful of humans than dairy breeds (Murphey et al 1981), but this could be partially due to a lower level of contact with humans rather than a genetic effect. In our study, crossbred calves, which were a cross between dairy and beef breeds, and dual-purpose (milk and meat) breed calves were generally less fearful than dairy breed calves.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…In studies on (veal and dairy) calves mainly dairy breeds have been studied so far (Lensink et al, 2000a and2000b;Rousing et al, 2005;Bokkers et al, 2009). In beef cattle, clear breed differences were found in terms of temperament and reactivity to humans (Murphey et al, 1981;Boivin et al, 1992 and. Similar differences may therefore also apply between veal calves of dairy and beef breeds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Leruste

Bokkers

Heutinck

et al. 2012

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 6 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Leruste

Bokkers

Heutinck

et al. 2012

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most reactive and excitable pigs with the greatest startle reactions were also the most likely to voluntarily approach a novel bucket placed in their pen (61). In cattle, breeds with the largest flight zone had the greatest tendency to approach novel objects or a person laying on the ground (74,75).The author has observed cattle that will approach and manipulate a piece of paper lying on the ground when allowed to voluntarily approach it, but they will balk and jump away if someone attempts to drive them over it.…”

Section: Effects Of Noveltymentioning

confidence: 99%

Review: Reducing Handling Stress Improves Both Productivity and Welfare

Pas

Oldfield²,

Boyd³

1998

The Professional Animal Scientist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reducing stress on livestock during handling will help reduce sickness and enable cattle to go back on feed more quickly. Many detrimental effects of handling stressors on animal performance and health are likely due to fear. Practical experience on ranches and feedlots shows that making cattle accustomed to people both on foot and on horseback will produce calmer and easier to handle cattle. An animal's first experience with a new corral, a person, or pieces of equipment should be made as positive as possible. If a painful or very aversive procedure is done the first time, it may be difficult to persuade the animal to re-enter the facility. The following tips will improve handling: move small numbers of animals at a time, do not overload the crowd pen, eliminate electric prods, open anti-back gates, eliminate visual distractions that make animals balk, use flight zone and point of balance principles, and reduce noise.

show abstract

“…Mahut (1958) demonstrated an example of differences in fear responses between beagles and terriers. When frightened, beagles freeze and terriers run around frantically In domestic livestock, measuring fear reactions during restraint or in an open field test has revealed differences in temperament both between breeds and between individuals within a breed (Grandin, 1993a;Tulloh, 1961;Dantzer and Mormede, 1983;Murphey et al, 1980bMurphey et al, , 1981. The fearful, flighty animals become more agitated and struggle more violently when restrained for vaccinations and other procedures (Fordyce et al, 1988;Grandin, 1993a).…”

Section: Measuring Fear-based Behaviorsmentioning

confidence: 99%