latency and no trial by treatment interaction, although there was a non-significant tendency for cows on the hitrshout treatment to take longer to enter the race than cows
Ž .
on other treatments P - 0.10. . On trial 6, cows on the hitrshout treatment took
Ž .
significantly longer to enter the race than control cows P - 0.05 and cows on the food Ž
. treatment P - 0.01 . On trial 8, cows on the hitrshout treatment took longer to enter
Ž .
the race than cows on each of the other three treatments P - 0.05 . There was a large decrease from trial 1 to trial 2 in the amount of time to move down
Ž .
the race Fig. 2b for cows on all treatments. Overall, the time to walk through the race Ž
. differed significantly between treatments P - 0.001 . Cows on the hitrshout treatment
Ž .
took longer to walk through the race than cows on the other three treatments P - 0.01 . Cows given food took less time to walk through the race than control cows on trial 4
Ž .
P - 0.05 . Brushed cows took longer to walk through the race than cows given food on Ž
. Ž
. trials 4 and 5 P - 0.05 and from control cows on trial 4 P - 0.05 .
The amount of force required to move the cow through the race reflected the amount of time required to walk through the race; there was a significant treatment effect
Ž .
Ž .
P - 0.001 but no trial by treatment interaction Fig. 2c . On average, cows on the hitrshout treatment required more force to move through the race than cows on the
Ž .
other three treatments P - 0.01 , while cows given food required less force to move Ž
. through the maze than cows on the brush treatment P - 0.05 . Control cows required
Ž more force to move through the maze than cows given food on trials 11 and 12 both
. comparison P - 0.05 .
4. Experiment 2: Methods for moving cows
In this experiment we used the race to determine the relative aversiveness of various techniques used to move adult dairy cows.
4.1. Methods Sixty non-lactating, multiparous cows were randomly allotted to five treatment
groups. a. Tail twist. The tail was grasped near the base and carefully twisted in a clockwise
Ž manner until slight resistance was felt. The tail was held in this position for 3 s four
. times per minute .
b. Hit. The cow was hit on the rump with an open hand once every 15 s. Ž
. c. Electric prod. An electric cattle prod Stockmaster, 30 V made contact with the
animal’s rump four times per minute but current was applied only the first time. d. Shout. Experimenter moved to side of animal and shouted loudly at the cow for 5 s,
four times during the minute. e. Control. The experimenter moved to the side of the animal and returned to the front
of the animal every 15 s but did not treat the animal in any way.
The treatments were applied at the end of the race in the treatment pen. All treatment periods were 1 min in duration. In order to facilitate application, treatments were applied
from the side of the animal. To ensure that the cows associated the treatment with the person, the person remained in view of the animals while performing the treatment, and
returned and stood in front of the animal every time after applying each treatment.
Unlike experiment 1, the cows were familiarised with the race the day before the experiment. During this day, cows were taken to the race and allowed 2 min to walk
through each section of the race before force was applied. No treatments were applied when the cow reached the end of the race during this training run.
Two groups of five cows, one per treatment, were tested each week. Cows passed through the race three times a day over 3 days, for a total of nine trials. Treatment order
was balanced across groups and one person treated all the animals. 4.2. Results
Over the course of the experiment the average latency to enter the race did not show Ž
. any consistent change over trials Fig. 3a and there was no treatment effect or trial by
Ž .
treatment interaction. There was a trial by treatment interaction P - 0.05 for the
Ž .
average time to walk through the race Fig. 3 . Cows on the electric prod treatment took more time to walk through the race than cows on the control treatment on trials 5, 7, 8
Ž .
Ž .
P - 0.05 , and 9 P - 0.01 . Cows on the shout treatment took more time to walk
Ž .
through the race than control cows on trial 5 P - 0.05 . Cows on the control, hit, and tail twist treatment did not differ from each other in the amount of time to walk through
the race. The amount of force required to move the cows through the race also showed a trial
Ž .
by treatment interaction Fig. 3c . Cows on the electric prod treatment required more Ž
force to move down the race than control cows after trial 3 trial 4, P - 0.05; trial 5, .
P - 0.01; trial 6, P - 0.05; trials 7 and 8, P - 0.01; and trial 9, P - 0.001 , while cows Ž
on the shout treatment also differed from control cows after trial 3 trial 4, P - 0.05; .
trial 5, P - 0.01, trials 6–9, P - 0.05 . Cows on the tail-twist and hit treatments did not differ with control or each other.
5. Experiment 3: Rewarding treatments for heifers
