Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T19:24:30.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Breed effect on lamb activity and vocalization in a man-animal interaction test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2017

S. R. Silva*
Affiliation:
CECAV-UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal
A. Lourenço
Affiliation:
CECAV-UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal
J. Almeida
Affiliation:
CECAV-UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal
P. Fontes
Affiliation:
CECAV-UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal
R. Machado
Affiliation:
CECAV-UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal
J. Azevedo
Affiliation:
CECAV-UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal
Get access

Extract

The interaction between man-animal has a great impact on farm animal welfare and it constitutes an area of dynamic research. Typically the goal this kind of studies is to reach good management practices with lower costs and providing a better welfare to the animals. To evaluate the interaction man-animal many behavioural tests have been developed and applied to different animal species (Pajor et al., 2003; Lansade et al., 2004; Tallet et al., 2006). These tests are used to evaluate relationship between farm animals and their stockperson and how it affects the animal behaviour. The objective of this study is to compare the lamb behaviours of activity and vocalization of two breeds -Île-de-France (IF) and Churra da Terra Quente (CTQ) in a man-animal standard test.

Type
Posters
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Lansade, L., Bertrand, M., Boivin, X. and Bouissou, M.F. 2004. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 87, 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pajor, E.A., Rushen, J., and De Passille, A.M.B. 2003. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 80, 93–107.Google Scholar
Tallet, C., Veissier, I., and Boivin X. 2006. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 99, 106–117.Google Scholar