had previously experienced both the sensation and sound associated with electric prodding. q
2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Behavior; Cattle; Electric prod; Handling aids
1. Introduction
Handling of cattle is required for routine husbandry procedures such as movement, restraint and transportation. As a practical matter, the use of a handling aid is sometimes
required, but it is essential to first identify a suitable aid and then apply it correctly to Ž
. effectively encourage movement Grandin, 1993 . When handling methods are inappro-
priate, cattle may exhibit undesirable behavior, or become distressed and even injured. Moreover, a handler may become frustrated by uncooperative cattle and resort to
unnecessarily forceful methods of encouraging movement, which may result in injury to handler, animal, or both. Further, rough handling experiences may result in overly
excitable, unapproachable cattle, consequently compromising labor efficiency. In fact,
Ž .
Rickenbacker 1959 observed that excessive use of handling aids caused cattle to become so confused and excited that the aids actually hindered rather than facilitated
movement. Understanding reactions of animals to improper handling can help a handler recognize and respond appropriately to situations in need of improvement. Reducing the
distress caused by poor handling presumably, would in turn, decrease the likelihood of chronically activating the sympatho-adrenomedullary system that may result in reduced
Ž fertility, decreased milk yield and increased aggression Mateo et al., 1990; Willner,
. 1993 .
Few in-depth studies exist relating the behavioral responses of farm animals in general, and cattle in particular, to the use of specific handling aids. Electrical prods, for
instance, are frequently used to expedite handling and movement and can be quite Ž
. effective when applied correctly and in appropriate situations Grandin, 1980 . When
Ž used to load pigs, they can produce rapid, relatively orderly movement Guise and
. Penny, 1989 . Nonetheless, there is evidence that when used inappropriately, electrical
prods and other handling aids may have detrimental effects on the behavior and Ž
. physiological status of some farm animals. Hemsworth et al. 1987 found that pigs that
were electrically prodded had higher elevations of free corticosteroids when approached by humans than did those that had not been prodded. Also, pigs that were electrically
prodded were hesitant to eat when they could see a person in front of their trough and
Ž .
subsequently exhibited aggressive behavior toward handlers Bresson, 1982 . Further, when pigs that approached humans were electrically prodded, they subsequently became
more hesitant to approach people, and were less inclined to interact with handlers Ž
. Hemsworth et al., 1987 . Consequently, some organizations have recommended abol-
Ž .
ishing the use of electrical prods for animal handling Guise and Penny, 1989 . Although electrical prods are often used to facilitate handling and movement of
cattle, relatively little has been reported about the behavioral responses of cattle to Ž
. electrical prodding. Lefcourt et al. 1985 noted that because cattle have very low
Ž .
electrical resistance, even small neutral to ground voltages e.g., 0.5–3 V can cause
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
