Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T09:07:47.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Objectively measuring behaviour traits in an automated restraint-test for ungulates: towards making temperament measurable

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2012

K. L. GRAUNKE ,
J. LANGBEIN ,
D. REPSILBER  and
P-C. SCHÖN
K. L. GRAUNKE
Affiliation:
Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology (FBN), Research Unit Behavioural Physiology, Wilhelm-Stahl-Allee 2, 18196 Dummerstorf, Germany
J. LANGBEIN
Affiliation:
Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology (FBN), Research Unit Behavioural Physiology, Wilhelm-Stahl-Allee 2, 18196 Dummerstorf, Germany
D. REPSILBER
Affiliation:
Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology (FBN), Research Unit Genetics and Biometry, Wilhelm-Stahl-Allee 2, 18196 Dummerstorf, Germany
P-C. SCHÖN*
Affiliation:
Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology (FBN), Research Unit Behavioural Physiology, Wilhelm-Stahl-Allee 2, 18196 Dummerstorf, Germany
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email:Schoen@fbn-dummerstorf.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The personality of an animal is described by traits that cause consistent actions and reactions to environmental stimuli. An important part of personality is the reaction to unpleasant or uncontrollable situations. Methods described in the literature to measure personality in animals are often based on measuring or rating escape behaviour in these situations. In the methods described, human handlers are frequently part of the experiment or the animals’ personalities are scored by humans. Thus, these methods are at least partly subjective.

In the current study, an appliance to measure objectively the escape behaviour of ungulates and their reluctance during an uncontrollable situation (restraint) with a rather simple and comprehensible methodology is presented using a force transducer with adequate peripheral equipment. While the animals were restrained, a tractive force-time diagram describing escape behaviour was recorded and later analysed with software developed specifically.

To evaluate this newly developed technical method, 24 three-month-old calves were restrained by being tethered for 30 min on a halter that was connected to the force transducer. From the tractive force-time diagram, tractive force, maximal tractive force and the number of pulls that the calves performed during 5-min intervals were calculated. The multivariate results were analysed with a k-means-algorithm (function ‘kcca’) and a hierarchical clustering (function ‘hclust’) included in R version 2.12.1.

Both analyses revealed two clearly separated clusters including the same individuals in each analysis. The animals of cluster 1 showed a continuously higher reaction level than those of cluster 2 with a strong reaction in the beginning, a short decrease before increasing during the middle of the experiment and a final decrease at the end of the test. The animals of cluster 2 had a lower and quite steady reaction level throughout the experiment, although even here a slight increase during the middle of the experiment could be detected before a final decrease towards the end of the test was shown. There was no significant difference in weight between the two clusters.

The results showed that this newly developed method was able to detect differences in the animals’ escape behaviour patterns and reluctance with the measured parameters.

Type
Animal Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 151 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 141 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Benhajali, H., Boivin, X., Sapa, J., Pellegrini, P., Boulesteix, P., Lajudie, P. & Phocas, F. (2010). Assessment of different on-farm measures of beef cattle temperament for use in genetic evaluation. Journal of Animal Science 88, 3529–3537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boissy, A. (1995). Fear and fearfulness in animals. Quarterly Review of Biology 70, 165–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boissy, A. & Bouissou, M.-F. (1988). Effects of early handling on heifers’ subsequent reactivity to humans and to unfamiliar situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20, 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X., Gilard, F. & Egal, D. (2009). The effect of early human contact and the separation method from the dam on responses of beef calves to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 120, 132–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D. M. (1988). The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrow, H. M. (1997). Measurements of temperament and their relationship with performance traits of beef cattle. Animal Breeding Abstracts 65, 477–495.Google Scholar
Burrow, H. M. (1998). The effects of inbreeding on productive and adaptive traits and temperament of tropical beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 55, 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, K., Tully, L. A. & McMillan, J. L. (2005). Temperament correlates with training success in adult rhesus macaques. American Journal of Primatology 65, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Passillé, A. M., Rushen, J., Ladewig, J. & Petherick, C. (1996). Dairy calves’ discrimination of people based on previous handling. Journal of Animal Science 74, 969–974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fell, L. R., Colditz, I. G., Walker, K. H. & Watson, D. L. (1999). Associations between temperament, performance and immune function in cattle entering a commercial feedlot. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 39, 795–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischrind Stölln GmbH (2007). Charolais-Rinder aus dem Havelland. Wilfried Zachert. Available online at: http://www.charolais-stoelln.de/zuchtziel.php?id=3 (verified 7 March 2012).Google Scholar
Fordyce, G., Dodt, R. M. & Wythes, J. R. (1988 a). Cattle temperaments in extensive beef herds in Northern Queensland. 1. Factors affecting temperament. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 28, 683–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fordyce, G., Goddard, M. E., Tyler, R., Williams, G. & Toleman, M. (1985). Temperament and bruising of Bos indicus cattle. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 25, 283–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fordyce, G., Wythes, J. R., Shorthose, W. R., Underwood, D. W. & Shepherd, R. K. (1988 b). Cattle temperaments in extensive beef herds in Northern Queensland. 2. Effect of temperament on carcass and meat quality. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 28, 689–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forkman, B., Boissy, A., Meunier-Salaün, M.-C., Canali, E. & Jones, R. B. (2007). A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiology and Behaviour 92, 340–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaden, B., Burrow, H. & Pettiford, S. (2004). Flight time – a practical way to improve feedlot performance, temperament and tenderness. In Producing Quality Beef – Opportunities for Beef Producers from the CRC for Cattle and Beef Quality (Ed Gaden, B.), pp. 26–28. Armidale, NSW, Australia: CRC for Cattle and Beef Quality.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. M., Lawrence, A. B. & Haskell, M. J. (2011). Consistency of flight speed and response to restraint in a crush in dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 131, 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T. (1993). Behavioral agitation during handling of cattle is persistent over time. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grignard, L., Boivin, X., Boissy, A. & Le Neindre, P. (2001). Do beef cattle react consistently to different handling situations? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71, 263–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilgour, R. J., Melville, G. J. & Greenwood, P. L. (2006). Individual differences in the reaction of beef cattle to situations involving social isolation, close proximity of humans, restraint and novelty. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koolhaas, J. M., De Boer, S. F., Coppens, C. M. & Buwalda, B. (2010). Neuroendocrinology of coping styles: Towards understanding the biology of individual variation. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 31, 307–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lanier, J. L., Grandin, T., Green, R. D., Avery, D. & McGee, K. (2000). The relationship between reaction to sudden, intermittent movements and sounds and temperament. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1467–1474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Neindre, P., Trillat, G., Sapa, J., Ménissier, F., Bonnet, J. N. & Chupin, J. M. (1995). Individual differences in docility in Limousin cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2249–2253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leisch, F. (2006). A toolbox for k-centroids cluster analysis. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 51, 526–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locurto, C. (2007). Individual differences and animal personality. Comparative Cognition and Behaviour Reviews 2, 67–78.Google Scholar
Manteca, X. & Deag, J. M. (1993). Individual differences in temperament of domestic animals: a review of methodology. Animal Welfare 2, 247–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, L. R., Carragher, J. F. & Slater, J. L. (1997). Effects of flightiness, sociability and previous handling experience on the behaviour of cattle in yards (abstract). In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference of the ISAE, 13–16 August 1997 (Eds Špinka, M., Illmann, G., Maletìnská, J., Štìtková, Z. & , L., Bartoš), p. 94. Prague, Czech Republic: International Society of Applied Ethology.Google Scholar
Mayer, J. D. (1986). How mood influences cognition. In Advances in Cognitive Science (Ed. Sharkey, N. E.), pp. 290–314. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Ellis Horwood Limited.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2008). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Traditional Herefords (2008). The Official Traditional Hereford Web Site. Available online at http://www.traditionalherefords.org/ (verified 7 March 2012).Google Scholar
Veissier, I., Le Neindre, P. & Trillat, G. (1989). Adaptability of calves during weaning. Biology of Behaviour 14, 66–87.Google Scholar
Voisinet, B. D., Grandin, T., O'Connor, S. F., Tatum, J. D. & Deesing, M. J. (1997b). Bos indicus cross feedlot cattle with excitable temperaments have tougher meat and a higher incidence of borderline dark cutters. Meat Science 46, 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voisinet, B. D., Grandin, T., Tatum, J. D., O'Connor, S. F. & Struthers, J. J. (1997 a). Feedlot cattle with calm temperaments have higher average daily weight gains than cattle with excitable temperaments. Journal of Animal Science 75, 892–896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waiblinger, S., Boivin, X., Pedersen, V., Tosi, M.-V., Janczak, A. M., Visser, E. K. & Jones, R. B. (2006). Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 185–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® (2009). Training in the Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocols. Lelystad, The Netherlands: Welfare Quality®. Available online at: http://www.welfarequality.net/downloadattachment/43299/20259/2009-Nov_adapted_leafletWQTrainingAssessmentProtocols.pdf (verified 3 March 2012).Google Scholar