. Ž
. Ž
. with peers , and repetition first or second docility test as fixed factors, animal breed
Ž .
as a random factor, and breed Salers or Limousine as a block factor. As the factors Ž
. order of test presentation and repetition had no significant effect P 0.1 , they were
excluded from the final model. Ž
Analyses of variance using the General Linear Model procedure of SAS version .
Ž 6.11, SAS, 1989 were performed for the five variables the time spent still during each
of the first and second periods; the difference in the time spent still between the first .
period and the second one; the duration of the handling period; and the docility score . In order to evaluate the effect of the human entry on the time spent still, regardless
Ž the social environment, analysis of variance for repeated data G.L.M. procedure of
. S.A.S. was performed on the means of immobility duration during the first and the
second periods. Data distribution and homogeneity of variance were analysed for the five variables;
logarithmic transformation was used to normalise the data distribution and homogenise Ž
the variance if necessary however non-transformed mean and standard error values are .
presented to make the results more understandable . Moreover, in order to study the Ž
. consistency of reactions across the two docility tests with or without peers , Pearson’s
Ž . correlation coefficient r was calculated between the docility scores obtained during the
test with peers and those obtained during the test without peers.
3. Results
The Table 1 summarises the results of the analyses of variances. 3.1. Description of the studied sample
In general, the calves were weakly active during the docility tests. They spent 85.5 of time still when the human was absent and 75.8 of time still with the motionless
Table 1 Effects of the social environment and of the breed on the behavioural reactions of calves in the docility test —
variances analyses Variable
Meanstandard Effect of the social
Effect of the Ž .
deviation s environment F
breed F
1,37 1,36
UUU
Time spent still during 1st 25.665.39
14.00 0.48
Ž . Ž .
period s absence of human
Time spent still during 2nd 22.747.56
1.09 1.65
Ž . Ž .
period s motionless human
Difference in the immobility 2.925.79
1.83 1.16
duration between the 1st Ž .
and the 2nd period s
U
Duration of the 3rd period 99.7132.12
6.10 0.35
Ž . Ž .
s handling
Ž Docility score calculated
12.873.05 0.19
0.01 .
over all the duration of the test Level of significance:
U
P F 0.05;
UU
P F 0.01;
UUU
P F 0.001.
Ž human. They spent little time running regardless of the period of the test absence of
human: 0.2; with the motionless human: 0.6; handling: 3.6 of the total duration of .
Ž the period . In addition, attempts to escape were scarce absence of human: 0.2; with the
. motionless human: 0.6; handling: 0.02 , and no calves were aggressive towards the
human. The handler was able to maintain 50 of the calves in the corner, and 73.7 of these calves could be stroked. The mean docility score ranged from 9.8 to 15.9.
3.2. First period of the test absence of human When calves were tested with peers, they spent more time still than when they were
Ž .
tested without peers F s 14.0, P - 0.001; Fig. 2 .
1,37
3.3. Second period of the test animal with motionless human The social environment had no significant influence on the time spent still in the
Ž presence of the motionless human in presence of peers: 23.4 7.4 s; in absence of
. peers: 22.0 7.7 s; F
s 1.1 . However, calves were significantly less still when the
1,37
Ž human was present than when he was absent 22.7 7.6 vs. 25.7 5.4 s, respectively;
. F
s 16.4, P - 0.001 . This difference in the duration of immobility between the first
1,36
Ž and second periods was not influenced by the social environment 3.7 6.3 s with
. peers; 2.1 5.2 s without peers; F
s 1.8 .
1,37
3.4. Third period of the test handling The calves were easier to handle in the absence of peers, with the duration of
handling being significantly shorter when calves were tested in absence of peers than in Ž
. presence of peers F
s 6.1, P - 0.05; Fig. 3 .
1,37
Ž Fig. 2. Influence of the social environment on the duration of calves’ immobility in absence of human period
.
U UU
UUU
1 in the docility test. Levels of significance: P F 0.05; P F 0.01;
P F 0.001.
Ž .
Fig. 3. Influence of the social environment on the duration of the handling period period 3 in the docility test. Levels of significance:
U
P F 0.05;
UU
P F 0.01;
UUU
P F 0.001.
Fig. 4. Correlation between docility scores obtained by calves in docility tests in presence and in absence of peers. Levels of significance:
U
P F 0.05;
UU
P F 0.01;
UUU
P F 0.001.
3.5. Docility score Ž
The social environment had no significant effect on the docility score in presence of .
peers: 12.8 2.9; in absence of peers: 13.0 3.2; F s 0.2 . The calculation of
1,37
Pearson’s coefficient indicated a highly significant correlation between the two docility Ž
. Ž
tests with peers and without peers performed by each animal r s 0.6, P - 0.01; Fig. .
4 .
4. Discussion
