Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T02:02:42.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of the observation method (direct v. from video) and of the presence of an observer on behavioural results in veal calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2013

H. Leruste ,
E. A. M. Bokkers ,
O. Sergent ,
M. Wolthuis-Fillerup ,
C. G. van Reenen  and
B. J. Lensink
H. Leruste*
Affiliation:
Groupe ISA Lille, CASE, 48 boulevard Vauban, 59046 Lille, Cedex, France
E. A. M. Bokkers
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
O. Sergent
Affiliation:
Groupe ISA Lille, CASE, 48 boulevard Vauban, 59046 Lille, Cedex, France
M. Wolthuis-Fillerup
Affiliation:
Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Center, PO Box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands
C. G. van Reenen
Affiliation:
Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Center, PO Box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands
B. J. Lensink
Affiliation:
Groupe ISA Lille, CASE, 48 boulevard Vauban, 59046 Lille, Cedex, France
*
†E-mail: helene.leruste@isa-lille.fr
Get access

Abstract

This study aimed at assessing the effect of the observation method (direct or from video) and the effect of the presence of an observer on the behavioural results in veal calves kept on a commercial farm. To evaluate the effect of the observation method, 20 pens (four to five calves per pen) were observed by an observer for 60 min (two observation sessions of 30 min) and video-recorded at the same time. To evaluate the effect of the presence of the observer in front of the pen, 24 pens were video-recorded on 4 consecutive days and an observer was present in front of each pen for 60 min (two observation sessions of 30 min) on the third day. Behaviour was recorded using instantaneous scan sampling. For the study of the observer's effect, the analysis was limited to the posture, abnormal oral behaviour and manipulation of substrates. The two observation methods gave similar results for the time spent standing, but different results for all other behaviours. The presence of an observer did not affect the behaviour of calves at day level; however, their behaviour was affected when the observer was actually present in front of the pens. A higher percentage of calves were standing and were manipulating substrate in the presence of the observer, but there was no effect on abnormal oral behaviour. In conclusion, direct observations are a more suitable observation method than observations from video recordings for detailed behaviours in veal calves. The presence of an observer has a short-term effect on certain behaviours of calves that will have to be taken into consideration when monitoring these behaviours.

Keywords

abnormal oral behaviourdirect observationobserver effectveal calvesvideo recordings
Type
Behaviour, welfare and health
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 11 , November 2013 , pp. 1858 - 1864
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Altmann, J 1973. Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49, 227–267.Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Bracke, MBM, Perny, P, Butterworth, A, Capdeville, J, Van Reenen, CG, Veissier, I 2007. Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: analysis of constraints. Animal 1, 1188–1197.Google Scholar
Broom, DM 1983. Stereotypies as animal welfare indicators. In Indicators relevant to farm animal welfare (ed. D. Schmidt), pp. 81–87. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, ND.Google Scholar
Cain, NG 1990. Unrecognized anti-predator behaviour can bias observational data. Animal Behaviour 39, 195–196.Google Scholar
de Passillé, AM, Metz, JHM, Mekking, P, Wiepkema, PR 1992. Does drinking milk stimulate sucking in young calves? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34, 23–36.Google Scholar
de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J, Ladewig, J, Petherick, C 1996. Dairy calves’ discrimination of people based on previous handling. Journal of Animal Science 74, 969–974.Google Scholar
EU Council 1997. Directive 97/2/EC. Official Journal of European Communities Bruxelles 17, 0024–0025.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1992. FAWC updates the five freedoms. The Veterinary Record 17, 357.Google Scholar
Fernandez, EJ, Tamborski, MA, Pickens, SR, Timberlake, W 2009. Animal-visitor interactions in the modern zoo: conflicts and interventions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 120, 1–8.Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1995. Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Animal Welfare 4, 103–117.Google Scholar
Iredale, SK, Nevill, CH, Lutz, CK 2010. The influence of observer presence on baboon (Papio spp) and rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) behavior. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 122, 53–57.Google Scholar
Jago, JG, Krohn, CC, Matthews, LR 1999. The influence of feeding and handling on the development of the human-animal interactions in young cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62, 137–151.Google Scholar
Lariviere, S, Messier, F 1998. The influence of close-range radio-tracking on the behavior of free-ranging striped skunks, Mephitis mephitis. Canadian Field-Naturalist 112, 657–660.Google Scholar
Le Neindre, P 1993. Evaluating housing systems for veal calves. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1345–1354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lensink, BJ, Boivin, X, Pradel, P, Le Neindre, P, Veissier, I 2000. Reducing veal calves’ reactivity to people by providing additional human contact. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1213–1218.Google Scholar
Martin, P, Bateson, P 1993. Measuring behaviour. An introductory guide, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
McDougall, P 2012. Is passive observation of habituated animals truly passive? Journal of Ethology 30, 219–223.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc 2002. SAS (for Windows) [computer program] Version 9.1. Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
Tosi, MV, Ferrante, V, Mattiello, S, Canali, E, Verga, M 2006. Comparison of video and direct observation methods for measuring oral behavior in veal calves. Italian Journal of Animal Science 5, 19–27.Google Scholar
Veissier, I, Chazal, P, Pradel, P, Le Neindre, P 1997. Providing social contacts and objects for nibbling moderates reactivity and oral behaviors in veal calves. Journal of Animal Science 75, 356–365.Google Scholar
Veissier, I, Ramirez de la Fe, AR, Pradel, P 1998. Nonnutritive oral activities and stress responses of veal calves in relation to feeding and housing conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57, 35–49.Google Scholar
Webb, L, Bokkers, EAM, Engel, B, Gerrits, WJJ, Berends, H, van Reenen, CG 2012. Behaviour and welfare of veal calves fed different amounts of solid feed supplemented to a milk replacer ration adjusted for similar growth. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 136, 108–116.Google Scholar
Whittaker, D, Knight, R 1998. Understanding wildlife responses to humans. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 26, 312–317.Google Scholar