Ž .
them to respond by lifting their legs, kicking or swaying. Lefcourt et al. 1986 also found that cattle behavior was sometimes dramatically affected when they were shocked.
When restrained cows were shocked at electrical intensities ranging from 2.5 to 10.0 mA, they responded so violently that their safety and well-being were jeopardized
Ž
. Lefcourt et al., 1986 . In fact, cows that were shocked at currents of 12 mA were
Ž .
unapproachable Lefcourt et al., 1985 . Because electrical prods and other handling aids are used to facilitate movement of
various breeds of calves, an experiment was designed to determine the behavioral responses of different types of calves to the application of one of three kinds of handling
aids. Calves’ initial responses to a stationary and approaching handler were recorded and compared with their responses to the same handler after they had experienced one of
three different aids. Further, to contrast the efficacies of the aids, the number of applications and length of time required to effect forward movement of calves through a
Ž .
chute using each of the different aids were recorded.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Animals and treatments Three groups of calves were used: Group 1 consisted of 15 intact Holstein males
Ž .
Ž .
172–187 days old mean 180 days , weighing 145–182 kg mean 158 kg ; Group 2 Ž
consisted of nine Angus and six Simmental intact heifers 205–292 days old mean 236 .
Ž .
days , 189–348 kg mean 290 kg ; Group 3 consisted of seven Angus, three Simmental, Ž
. and five Hereford castrated males 221–297 days old mean 253 days , 246–343 kg
Ž .
mean 310 kg . In addition to breed and gender disparities, several differences existed between groups prior to the study. Group 1 calves had previously been reared indoors
and had no prior experience with either restraint or chute. Also, they had been manually handled frequently prior to initiation of the experiment. In contrast, Groups 2 and 3
calves were reared outdoors, and had experienced restraint in a chute system prior to the experiment, but had been only infrequently handled. With the exception of manual
handling, none of the calves had previously experienced the handling aids used in the study. Because of the confounding associated with these factors, the effects of group
were accounted for in the statistical analyses to be described later.
Ž For each group, calves were randomly allotted to five trios stratified by body
. weight . Each trio was then randomly assigned to one of the three handling-aid
Ž treatments: Prod — electric prod Model HS2000, Hotshot Products, Savage, MN; 3.3
w x
Ž x.
kV, 700 mA with 500 V load, alternately on 0.08 ms and off 100.00 ms ; Oar — oar
Ž .
with rattles Koehn Marketing, Watertown, SD; 122 cm long ; or Manual — manual Ž
. urging bare-hand slap on calf rump .
For each trio of calves, one additional similar calf was kept with the experimental calves to serve as a companion when an experimental subject was temporarily isolated
from its group.
2.2. Procedures 2.2.1. Adjustment
Each group of 15 experimental and five companion calves was moved to an outdoor pen to adjust for 2 weeks. The adjustment period was granted to accustom the calves to
group housing in new facilities, as it was necessary to move them from their previous quarters to new pens near the testing site. The 2-week period was therefore deemed
sufficient for the calves to recover from any distress caused by the move and the novel surroundings. All calves were fed the same quantity of the same diet throughout the
adjustment and experimental periods.
2.2.2. Initial approach test To assess individual calves’ respective initial reactions to a human in close proximity,
Ž .
an approach test was conducted on the day before the chute tests Day 0 . A handler directed each trio of calves plus a randomly selected companion calf from the outdoor
group pen into a small indoor holding pen. After a 15-min rest period, one experimental calf was separated at random and driven approximately 3 m to the test area where it
remained in auditory but not visual contact with its conspecifics during the test. This procedure was repeated until all calves in the trio had been approach-tested. All trios
were similarly tested.
Ž .
The test area was constructed of pipe gates sheathed with plywood 1.22 m high Ž
. arranged as an octagon minimum radius 3.68 m . The ground was covered to 8 cm with
wood chips. As a calf entered the test area, a handler stood motionless in the center of the area, holding the calf’s assigned handling aid at a 45
8 angle against his body so that the tip of the aid rested against the handler’s right shoulder. If the calf approached the
Ž handler within 1 min, an observer recorded the hesitation time defined as its latency to
. approach handler , as well as the distance it moved towards the handler. If it did not
approach, then for 4 min, the handler continuously walked towards the calf. The distance Ž
. if any the handler walked before the calf moved away was also recorded. This distance
was defined as the calf’s flight zone. The calf’s behavior in response to being approached was also recorded.
To verify distances and further evaluate behavior, the test area was video-recorded Ž
. using a video camera Model WV-BP 100rWV-BP104, Panasonic, Secaucus, NJ ,
Ž .
video recorder Model VCR4000, Emerson Radio, Princeton, IN , and wide-angle lens Ž
. Computar APC 3.6 mm TV lens, Chugai International, Commack, NY . All behaviors
that were observed were recorded. These included: stand, walk, butt, run, circle, sniff groundrhandlerrpen, approach, and escape attempt. A detailed ethogram is presented in
Table 1. At the end of the approach test, the calf was returned to the indoor holding pen.
2.2.3. Chute tests Tests of calves’ behavioral reactions to being driven through a solid-sided, semi-cir-
Ž cular chute system 18.5 m long, Powder River Livestock Handling Equipment, Provo,
. Ž
. UT were conducted the next day Day 1 . In the chute’s crowd pen, a handler randomly
chose and separated one calf and allowed it 20 s to investigate its assigned handling aid, which he held. Then, the sliding door at the chute entrance was opened, and the handler
applied the handling aid once to the calf’s right rump as he directed it into the chute.
Table 1 Behavior patterns of calves recorded during approach tests and chute testing
Behavior Definition
Stand Calf motionless, supported on all four legs
Walk Slow forward locomotion
Run Rapid forward locomotion
Turn Movement of head and forelegs backward or to the side
Circle Continuous, regular forward locomotion around perimeter of test area
Jump Upward motion with calf supported only by hind legs, forelegs raised and
extended towards test pen walls Ž
Sniff Calf standing or walking, head extended toward handler, movement aid,
. around or pen walls with nostrils flared
Butt Calf standing with head lowered, followed by forward movement with
head directed forcefully at handler, aid or pen walls Approach
Calf walking toward handler, then standing within 0.5 m of handler Physical interaction
Any visible occurrence of physical contact between calf and handler Allow approach
Calf standing or walking while permitting handler to move within 0.5 m of its body
Escape attempt Calf running toward test pen walls, followed by jumping
Stumble Forward locomotion interrupted by visible buckling of calf’s knees or legs
Side contact Calf bumping forcefully against walls of chute
Investigate Sniffing or licking handler, handling aid, test pen walls or ground
Balk Standing motionless, refusing to move despite handling aid application
The prod was applied for no longer than 1 s per occasion, and was used only as Ž
necessary to effect the calf’s progress through the chute e.g., the aid was only applied if .
the calf stopped moving forward . Oar calves were lightly struck on the right rump with that aid one time before the sliding door was opened, and again, as needed to effect
forward movement. As described for the prod, the oar was applied only when the calves stopped moving. Manual calves were gently slapped once on the right rump with a bare
hand prior to entry into the chute system. To the extent that it was possible to do so, the
Ž .
handler used the same amount of force each time a handling aid or slap
was administered. The number of prod applications, oar strikes, or hand slaps required to
move the calf through the chute was recorded. Additionally, the number of stop, turn, run, walk, investigate, contact side, refuse, and stumble behaviors were recorded. The
total handling time and the actual handling time were also recorded. Total handling time
Ž was defined as time required to separate the calf from its trio including the 20-s period
. of interaction with the aid to the time the calf exited the scale at the end of the chute
system. Actual time was defined as the time taken from the moment the calf entered the sliding door at the chute entry to the time the calf stepped onto the chute’s scale. After
the first trio had been tested, the next trio of calves within the assigned handling aid group was tested, and so on, until all had been tested.
2.2.4. Subsequent approach tests To determine the effects of the respective handling aids on the calves subsequent
Ž .
behavior, the approach test as described above was repeated 1 day and 1 week after chute testing.
Table 2 Frequencies
a
of behaviors observed during approach tests for Groups 1, 2 and 3 calves Ž
. Ž
. Means in the same row with different superscripts b, c, d differ; ns 5rtreatment P -0.05 .
Ž .
Ž .
Means in the same row with different superscripts e, f, g differ; ns 5rtreatment P -0.10 . Item
Treatment Pooled SEM
Friedman’s P Manual
Oar Prod
GROUP 1 Before handler approach
Stand 2.60
2.47 2.27
0.31 0.98
e f
g
Ž .
Sniff pen 0.87
1.00 0.40
0.22 0.10
Ž .
Sniff ground 0.27
0.60 0.27
0.16 0.16
Ž .
Sniff handler 0.47
0.80 0.60
0.22 0.82
Walk 1.87
2.20 1.47
0.37 0.86
Run 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Circle 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Approach 0.53
0.80 0.87
0.29 0.72
Escape attempt 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
After handler approach
bc b
c
Stand 7.33
5.47 9.07
0.76 0.01
Ž .
Sniff pen 3.13
2.93 3.67
0.49 0.76
e f
g
Ž .
Sniff ground 1.80
1.80 3.40
0.50 0.07
b c
d
Ž .
Sniff handler 0.73
2.87 1.20
0.46 0.01
bc b
c
Walk 7.27
6.20 9.20
0.90 0.08
Run 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Circle 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Approach 3.80
3.73 4.40
1.10 0.47
Escape attempt 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
GROUP 2 Before handler approach
Stand 4.32
3.87 3.40
0.46 0.67
Ž .
Sniff pen 2.40
1.93 1.80
0.43 0.94
b c
d
Ž .
Sniff ground 0.79
1.33 0.40
0.27 0.03
Ž .
Sniff handler 0.22
0.33 0.27
0.15 0.76
Walk 2.52
2 .93 2.39
0.48 0.80
b c
bc
Run 0.40
0.00 0.20
0.15 0.01
b c
d
Circle 1.45
0.50 0.20
0.37 0.00
Approach 0.42
0.27 0.33
0.18 0.37
Escape attempt 0.01
0.00 0.07
0.04 0.16
After handler approach Stand
15.03 15.33
16.13 1.59
0.69 Ž
. Sniff pen
10.21 9.27
7.87 1.28
0.40 Ž
. Sniff ground
2.55 1.93
2.27 0.64
0.87 Ž
. Sniff handler
1.11 1.40
2.40 0.49
0.39 Walk
10.35 10.87
12.73 1.73
0.68 Run
1.88 1.33
0.53 0.48
0.14 Circle
5.85 4.27
4.33 1.20
0.24 Approach
6.21 6.33
5.80 1.24
0.72
b c
c
Escape attempt 0.76
0.27 0.33
0.25 0.05
Ž .
Table 2 continued Item
Treatment Pooled SEM
Friedman’s P Manual
Oar Prod
GROUP 3 Before handler approach
b c
b
Stand 2.79
4.00 2.79
0.24 0.01
Ž .
Sniff pen 1.71
2.00 1.50
0.35 0.62
b b
c
Ž .
Sniff ground 1.29
1.43 0.29
0.50 0.01
Ž .
Sniff handler 0.14
0.07 0.00
0.07 0.61
b c
b
Walk 2.29
3.50 2.21
0.33 0.02
Run 0.07
0.36 0.07
0.13 0.52
Circle 0.29
0.29 0.21
0.15 0.96
Approach 0.14
0.21 0.00
0.09 0.37
Escape attempt 0.00
0.00 0.00
– –
After handler approach
b c
c
Stand 14.47
18.79 18.80
1.44 0.13
Ž .
Sniff pen 5.53
6.29 4.73
0.99 0.48
Ž .
Sniff ground 2.13
3.93 1.93
0.70 0.18
b c
c
Ž .
Sniff handler 4.87
2.43 2.33
0.65 0.04
b c
c
Walk 13.87
17.07 19.67
1.53 0.03
Run 1.27
0.71 0.60
0.53 0.81
Circle 1.00
1.00 0.27
0.34 0.43
Approach 13.67
12.13 11.93
0.87 0.63
Escape attempt 0.07
0.36 0.00
0.18 0.17
a
Frequencies denote the number of times a behavior was observed during a test period.
2.2.5. Reactions to sound of handling aid alone Prior to each calf’s release at the end of the Day 7 test, the handler returned to the
center of the test area and resumed holding the handling aids against his body as previously described. For 30 s, the handler buzzed the prod or rattled the oar in the
presence of each Prod or Oar calf, respectively, while observers recorded the calves’ responses.
To avoid differences in responses due to different handlers, the same handler and observers were used for the entire test procedure for each group of calves.
2.3. Statistics Ž
. Continuous data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance Minitab, 1996 .
Ž Because there were numerous pre-existing group differences e.g., gender, age, housing
. and breed between the three groups of calves, preliminary data analyses of the approach
test data were conducted. These analyses indicated significant interactions between main Ž
. effects Group X Treatment which precluded combining all data. Therefore, each
group’s approach test and chute test data set were analyzed separately. Data sets, which were not normally distributed, were transformed by deriving their square roots prior to
Ž .
Ž analysis of variance Steel and Torrie, 1980 . Pearson’s correlation procedure Steel and
. Torrie, 1980 was used to determine relationships within each trial among the total time
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
