spent handling the calf in the chute area, actual time required to move the calf through the chute, and number of handling-aid applications required to move the calf through the
chute.
3. Results
3.1. Approach tests Frequencies of behavior patterns observed during the approach tests conducted after
treatments were imposed are presented in Table 2. No significant differences were observed between approach test behaviors observed before and after administration of
Ž .
handling aids for any of the groups all P 0.10 . There were also no significant differences between behaviors observed during approach tests conducted 1 day and 1
Ž .
week after chute testing all P 0.10 . Therefore, the means of the three approach test Ž
. results are presented Table 2 . In response to a stationary handler, Group 1 Manual and
Ž .
Oar calves sniffed the pen more often than did Prod calves P - 0.10 . In response to an Ž
. Ž
. approaching handler, Prod calves stood P - 0.05 and walked P - 0.05 more often
than did Manual or Oar calves. Oar calves sniffed at the approaching handler more Ž
. frequently than Manual or Prod calves P - 0.05 . In response to a stationary handler,
Ž .
Ž .
Group 2 Manual calves ran P - 0.05 and circled the test area P - 0.01 more often than did Prod or Oar calves. Oar calves sniffed the ground more frequently than did
Ž .
Manual or Prod calves P - 0.05 . In response to handler approach, Manual calves in this group attempted to escape from the test arena more often than Oar or Prod calves
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
P - 0.05 . In Group 3, Oar calves stood P - 0.01 , walked P - 0.05 and sniffed the Ž
. ground P - 0.05 before the handler approached, more often than did Prod or Manual
Ž .
calves. In response to an approaching handler, Manual calves walked P - 0.05 less often than Oar or Prod calves but Manual calves also sniffed at the handler more often
Ž .
than Oar or Prod calves P - 0.03 . 3.2. Chute tests
Frequencies of behavior patterns during chute tests have been categorized by treatments within the three animal groups in Table 3. In Group 1, Prod calves turned,
ran, and made contact with the sides of the chute more often than did Manual or Oar Ž
. calves all P - 0.01 . Prod calves also balked and attempted to investigate the chute
Ž .
area less often than Manual or Oar Calves both P - 0.05 . In Group 2, Prod calves stumbled and made contact with the sides of the chute more often than Oar or Manual
Ž .
calves both P - 0.05 . In Group 3, Prod calves ran, made contact with chute sides, and Ž
. stumbled more often than Manual or Oar calves all P - 0.01 .
The duration of chute-test trials is summarized in Table 4. In Group 1, the actual time Ž
. Ž
. time taken to travel the length of the chute was less for Prod calves 46.27 s than
Ž .
Ž .
Manual 58.90 s or Oar calves 70.10 s . No differences were observed for Groups 2 or
Table 3 Frequencies
a
of behavior patterns observed during chute testing for Groups 1, 2 and 3 calves Ž
. Ž
. Means with different superscripts b, c, d differ; ns 5rtreatment P -0.05 .
Item Treatment
Pooled SEM Friedman’s P
Manual Oar
Prod GROUP 1
b bc
d
Turn 0.00
0.27 0.73
0.12 0.01
b b
c
Run 0.20
0.33 1.40
0.19 0.01
b c
d
Side contact 0.20
0.73 1.80
0.27 0.01
b b
c
Walk 3.00
3.07 2.00
0.39 0.04
b c
b
Balk 0.47
1.47 0.33
0.29 0.01
Stumble 0.13
0.13 0.53
0.14 0.32
b b
c
Investigate 2.13
2.07 0.80
0.42 0.02
GROUP 2 Turn
0.00 0.00
0.00 –
– Run
0.47 0.80
0.80 0.21
0.28
b c
d
Side contact 1.07
0.53 1.40
0.23 0.02
Walk 1.47
1.60 1.40
0.15 0.50
Balk 0.00
0.00 0.00
– –
b c
d
Stumble 0.13
0.40 0.73
0.14 0.03
Investigate 0.00
0.00 0.00
– –
GROUP 3 Turn
0.00 0.00
0.00 –
–
b b
c
Run 0.33
0.33 1.47
0.16 0.01
b c
d
Side contact 0.47
0.33 3.33
0.25 0.01
b b
d
Walk 1.33
1.47 0.47
0.14 0.01
Balk 0.07
0.00 0.07
0.05 0.61
b b
c
Stumble 0.27
0.13 0.73
0.15 0.01
Investigate 0.00
0.00 0.00
– –
a
Frequencies denote the number of times a behavior was observed during a test.
Ž 3 for actual time in the chute. Differences in total time time required to move calves
. from the crowd pen into the chute and to travel through and exit the chute area were
Ž .
observed for Group 1. Prod calves required least total time 84.10 s vs. 102.3 s Ž
. Ž
. Manual and 103.8 s Oar . No differences were observed for Groups 2 or 3 calves for
this category. The number of treatment the applications required to effect forward progress through the chute are also summarized in Table 4. Group 1 Prod calves
Ž required the fewest treatment applications Manual: 13.53; Oar: 23.53; Prod: 4.93;
. Ž
P - 0.01 . Group 2 Prod and Oar calves required fewer treatment applications 1.27 and .
Ž .
1.13, respectively than Manual calves 1.60 . No differences were observed in this category for Group 3 calves.
Ž .
There was positive correlation r s 0.95; P - 0.05 between the number of handling- aid applications and actual time spent in the chute for all groups. Similarly, total
Ž handling time and actual time spent in the chute were positively correlated r s 0.94;
. P - 0.05 for all groups.
Table 4 Number of treatment applications and amount of time required to move calves through the chute system
Ž .
Ž .
Means in the same row with different superscripts a, b, c differ P -0.05 . Ž
. Ž
. Means in the same row with different superscripts d, e, f differ P -0.10 .
Parameter Treatment
Pooled SEM P
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Manual N s 5 Oar N s 5
Prod N s 5 Treatment applications number
ab b
a
Group 1 13.53
23.53 4.93
4.27 0.01
d e
e
Group 2 1.60
1.13 1.27
0.15 0.09
Group 3 2.67
2.60 2.47
0.35 0.10
Actual time in chute s
ab b
a
Group 1 58.90
70.10 46.27
15.10 0.05
Group 2 13.93
14.93 15.80
0.77 0.10
Group 3 13.47
13.53 14.40
0.71 0.10
Total time in chute area s
a a
b
Group 1 102.30
103.80 84.10
20.18 0.05
Group 2 37.07
40.50 39.27
0.71 0.10
Group 3 36.73
38.60 37.90
0.98 0.10
3.3. Reactions to sound of handling aid alone Ž
. On Day 7 1 week after handling-aid application in chute tests , most Prod and Oar
calves appeared to respond behaviorally to the respective sounds of these handling aids Ž
. alone. 13 of 15 Prod calves moved away 1 m and eight of them, 2 m from the
handler when the electric prod was buzzed in their vicinity. Two responded to the sound of the prod by bucking and running around the test area. Similar responses were
observed in 11 of 15 Oar calves when the oar was shaken but not applied on Day 7. One Oar calf attempted to mount the handler, and two others butted the handler in response
to the shaking sound of the Oar.
4. Discussion
