To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] On: 08 June 2015, At: 08:28 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: Handling, Electric Goad, and Head Restraint: Effects on Calves' Behavior Laksiri A. Goonewardene, Mick A. Price, Joseph M. Stookey, Phyllis A. Day & Gary Minchau Published online: 04 Jun To cite this article: Laksiri A. Goonewardene, Mick A. Price, Joseph M. Stookey, Phyllis A. Day & Gary Minchau (2000) Handling, Electric Goad, and Head Restraint: Effects on Calves' Behavior, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 3:1, 5-22, DOI: /S JAWS0301_2 To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content ) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

2 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

3 JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE, 3(1), 5 22 Copyright 2000, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Handling, Electric Goad, and Head Restraint: Effects on Calves Behavior Laksiri A. Goonewardene Animal Industry Division Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development Mick A. Price Department of Agricultural, Food, and Nutritional Science University of Alberta Joseph M. Stookey Department of Herd Medicine and Theriogenology University of Saskatchewan Phyllis A. Day Animal Industry Division Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development Gary Minchau Department of Agricultural, Food, and Nutritional Science University of Alberta Ninety-six weaned calves (48 bulls and 48 heifers) were allocated in a2 2 2arrangement to 3 treatments each with 2 levels: calves handled every 10 days or 20 days; an electric goad used or not used; and head gate restrained or not restrained. Behavior responses were measured by 5 incremental progressive force requirement (PFR) categories and transit time (TT). The PFRs were transformed to maximum force scores (MFS) for analysis (Snell, 1964). TT was the time taken for calves to move 11 m along Requests for reprints should be sent to Laksiri A. Goonewardene, Animal Industry Division, Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6H 5T6. laki.goonewardene@agric.gov.ab.ca

4 6 GOONEWARDENE ET AL. a chute. During the study, 52%, 36%, 5%, 3%, and 5% of the cattle were observed in Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Cattle handled every 10 days showed a 36.0% higher MFS (p <.03) and a 24.5% higher TT (p <.02) than cattle handled every 20 days. The MFS and TT for head gate restrained calves were 33.0% (p <.03) and 15.5% higher (p <.02), respectively, compared to calves not restrained in the head gate. Cattle developed a reluctance to frequent handling early in the study and an aversion to head gate restraint midway. The aversion was pronounced when calves were handled frequently and head gate restrained simultaneously. Handling, goad, and head gate restraint had no effect (p >.05) on weight gain. The aversion to the head gate was more pronounced in bulls than in heifers. Cattle habituated well to frequent handling, but when combined with a head hold they became more difficult to handle. Management practices such as restraining cattle in the head gate should be done infrequently, thereby improving the welfare of calves. The welfare consequences of a number of common cattle handling sequences are not known. Livestock readily learn to differentiate between aversive and benign forms of restraint (Grandin, 1993a). Cattle who experience strong negative stimuli such as electro-immobilization show avoidance behaviors for long periods of time compared to those who have milder experiences such as being weighed or injected (Grandin, 1993a; Grandin, Odde, Schutz, & Behrns, 1994). Previous experiences, genetic factors, and the degree of pain also affect aversion behaviors (Hutson, 1980; Fordyce, Dodt, & Wythes, 1988; Grandin, 1993a). Although gender differences exist in the ease of handling nonhuman animals(hinch& Lynch, 1987; Warriss, 1990), the establishment of human animal relationships and prolonged contact with humans have been shown to make it easier to handle cattle (Boissey & Bouissou, 1988; Boivin, LeNeindre, Garel, & Chupin, 1994). Cattle used in research are weighed and handled more frequently than commercial cattle. Stubborn or fearful cattle that hesitate to move may be persuaded vocally, physically, and sometimes with an electric goad. The goad (prod) is deemed to be both painful and stressful to cattle (J. Stookey, personal communication, October, 1996). Research cattle sometimes are restrained repeatedly in head gates for processing, including blood collection. These repeated practices may compromise welfare, and cattle could develop behavior patterns such as aversion or tolerance to these stimuli. This study was designed to evaluate the behavior and growth responses of bull and heifer calves that were frequently handled, subjected to an electric cattle goad, and restrained in the head gate. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was conducted according to the Canadian Council of Animal Care (1993) protocols at the University of Alberta Kinsella Research Station over 80 days. A total of 96 weaned calves 48 bulls and 48 heifers from two hybrid

5 EFFECTS ON CALVES BEHAVIOR 7 lines, 48 Beef Synthetic and 48 Dairy Synthetic (Berg, Makarechian, & Arthur, 1990), with an average body weight of 312 ± 74 kg and an age of 190 ± 18 days were allocated by breed and sex to one of three treatments in a2 2 2 factorial arrangement. The treatments were 1. Handling frequency (HF) with two levels: handled every 10 days (HF = 10, n = 48) or handled every 20 days (HF = 20, n = 48). 2. Use of an electric goad (EG; PL Pulsar Hot Shot, Hot Shot Products Co., Inc., Minneapolis, MN) with two levels: electric goad used (EG+, n = 48) or electric goad not used (EG, n = 48). 3. Head gate restrained (HR), with two levels: restrained (HR+, n = 48) or not restrained (HR, n = 48). The head gate (Diamond R Livestock Equipment Co., Hermiston, OR) was constructed of hollow steel without padding, hinged at the bottom, and operated by a hydraulic system (Figure 1). The head opening of the gate in the closed position was 18 cm at the widest point. The calves at Kinsella are born outdoors during April and May, at which time their birth weights are recorded. In July, they are vaccinated for blackleg and weighed again. In October, they are weaned (approximately 150 days) and weighed, and the males are placed in the feedlot. Feeder-slaughter cattle are weighed monthly from October to April or May. When they attain a level of finish, they are sent for slaughter. Typical Kinsella cattle are accustomed to being handled. The calves in FIGURE 1 Photograph of head gate.

6 8 GOONEWARDENE ET AL. this study were housed in four 34m 48moutdoor pens that had straw mounds, fence line feeders, windbreaks, and straw bedding. Bulls and heifers were penned (four pens, each with 24 animals) separately, according to how frequently they were to be handled (10 days and 20 days) and were fed daily. The cattle were checked for diseases and abnormal behaviors at feeding time each day. Bull calves were fed a diet containing 63.8% rolled barley, 21.2% rolled oats, 10.0% sun-cured alfalfa pellets (18.0% crude protein), and 5.0% of a protein supplement (72.2% canola meal, 12.9% limestone, 6.5% phosphorus[as biophos], 3.2% salt, 2.5% barley grain, 2.1% molasses, and 0.65% Vitamins A, D, and E). Heifer calves were fed a hay containing brome (Bromis inermis), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), and creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra) free choice and provided with a mineralized salt. The configuration of the handling facility is shown in Figure 2. In groups of 12, calves were walked quietly from their pens a distance of approximately 400 m into a holding area and held behind gates in the chute. Gates 1 and 2 were then opened (Figure 2), and one animal was allowed into the chute to begin forward movement into the alley leading to the weigh scale, a distance of 13 m from Gate 1. After the weighing, operators opened Gate 3 at the front of the weigh scale and Gate 4 at the back of the squeeze. Timing with a stopwatch began with the forward movement of the animal into Chute 2 and was stopped when the entire animal was inside the squeeze, which had hydraulically operated sides and a head gate stanchion. All gates were closed immediately after each animal entered the next area in forward movement. Gates were solid so that calves could not see what was happening to their groupmates. The entire chute from the holding area to the exit door was located inside a heated building with a 220-cm high plywood ceiling. Ease of cattle movement was recorded in two ways: 1. Progressive force requirement (PFR), the stimulus required to move the cattle forward in Chute 2, where Category 1 = no stimulus or force applied if the animal did not move for 10 sec; Category 2 = voice and back slap at 1 sec intervals for 10 FIGURE 2 Handling facility configuration.

7 EFFECTS ON CALVES BEHAVIOR 9 sec; Category 3 = voice and 1 in. Polyvinyl chloride tube slap for 10 sec; Category 4 = tail twist; and Category 5 = whatever reasonable force was necessary to move the animal into the squeeze (J. Stookey, personal communication, October, 1996). 2. Transit time (TT), the time taken in seconds for an animal to move the length (11 m) of Chute 2 (Figure 2). Once in the squeeze, EG+ and HR+ animals were subjected to the relevant treatments or combinations. Reasonable force was a combination of the PFR categories. The electric goad was applied once (< 1 sec) over the left bicep femoris muscle of the animal in the squeeze, and HR+ animals were held in the head gate for 10 sec. Cattle not restrained in the head gate were held on the platform for 10 sec and released. At no time were the side panels of the squeeze used to restrain the calves. On Day 80, the last day of the study, all calves, regardless of their treatment group, were head gate restrained. Five ml of blood were collected by jugular vein puncture into sterile Vaccutainer tubes for serum cortisol (CORT) analysis. CORT was determined on all samples in a single run radioimmunoassay (Coat-A-Count Kit-Diagnostic Products Corporation, Los Angeles, CA). The assay was internally calibrated using human serum based standards with CORT values ranging from 1 50 ug/dl ( nmol/l). A standard bovine plasma pool, routinely extracted and assayed over the increasing range of dilutions, showed no significant lack of parallelism to the standard curve. The same operators worked the cattle at the different stations throughout the trial. Five nonexperimental animals were put through the handling facility before and after each evaluation to remove the influence of being among the first and last animals through the chute. This evaluation (experimental) procedure was repeated on nine occasions for those calves that passed through the handling facility every 10 days and on five occasions for those that were handled every 20 days. Using a sound level meter, Type 2205 (Bruel & Kjaer, DK-2850, Naerum, Denmark), the background noise level and the head gate closure noise were recorded on one occasion after the study when 23 animals came through the chute and were restrained in the head gate. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The PFR data were transformed into five Snell scores (Snell, 1964) where the Categories 1 5 represented maximum force scores (MFS) of 0, 42, 65, 76, and 100, respectively, which were then analyzed as a continuous variable. The Snell transformation converts categorical data to scores and provides homogenous residual variances over the subclasses and approximately normally distributed residual deviations. Average daily gains (ADG) were determined at 10- and 20-day intervals for all animals. The dependent variables, MFS, TT, ADG, and body weight were analyzed as a split-plot in time (repeated measures) using the General Linear Model (GLM) of the Statistical Analysis System Institute, Inc. (SAS; 1990) with HF, EG,

8 10 GOONEWARDENE ET AL. HR, and sex as main effects. The interactions of these effects were also assessed. The MFS and TT were measured over 5 periods and ADG over 4 periods (time). The period effect was considered the within-subject effect in the split-plot analysis of variance. Cortisol levels were analyzed as a factorial with HF, EG, HR, sex, and interaction effects (SAS, 1990). Linear and quadratic relations were determined for MFS and TT in the EG and HR treatments within each HF level (10-day and 20-day) for bulls and heifers separately, using the GLM procedure (SAS, 1990). The breed group effect was initially tested for differences in MFS and TT. Because it was not significant (p >.05), it was excluded from the model. RESULTS During the study, three Dairy Synthetic bull calves died of causes unrelated to the experiment, and so 93 cattle completed the trial. Cattle who were handled at 10-day intervals were evaluated on nine occasions. Those handled at 20-day intervals were evaluated on five. Of the 93 animals that completed the study, 30 were classified at least once in the two PFR Categories 4 and 5 (31.3%). Of these animals, 20 were classified once, 7 were classified three times, and 2 were classified four times in Categories 4 or 5. Using the repeatability of being classified in the extreme Categories 4 and 5 as a measure of the degree of handling difficulty, 10 animals in this study could be classified as being difficult to handle. In the HF10 treatment, 7 calves were repeatedly classified in Categories 4 and 5. The same animals were head gate restrained as well. Figure 3 shows the number of times the calves were observed to be in each PFR category for the eight treatment combinations. As all animals were subjected to their respective treatment combinations on at least five occasions (0, 20, 40, 60, and 80 days), the number of times the animals were observed in each PFR category was 465. In general, animals subjected to the HF10 EG+ HR+ treatment combination were observed 16 times in PFR Categories 3, 4, and 5 compared to none in the HF20 EG HR, which were considered the mildest treatment. On 27 occasions, head gate restrained animals in the HF10 group were observed in PFR Categories 3, 4, and 5. Animals not restrained in the head gate were observed in the same categories on only 12 occasions. However, in the HF20 group equal numbers (10) were observed in Categories 3, 4, and 5 in the HR + and HR groups. More observations (cattle) were represented in PFR Categories 1 and 2 (87.3%) than in the other categories. During the study, 52, 36, 5, 3, and 5% of the observations were in the PFR Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. The effects of handling, use of the goad, and head gate restraint on MFS, TT, ADG, and body weight over all periods are shown in Table 1. The effects of HF, PR, HR, and sex on MFS and TT within each period are shown in Table 2. Overall MFS and TT were significantly (p <.02) affected by HF and HR (Table 1). Cattle who were handled at 10-day intervals showed a 36.0% higher MFS and a 24.5% higher

9 FIGURE 3 Number of times the calves were observed in each progressive force requirement category for the treatment combinations. HF = handling frequency; 10 = 10-day interval; 20 = 20-day interval; EG = electric goad; + = used; = not used; and HR = head restraint. 11

10 TABLE 1 Effect of Handling Frequency, Electric Goad, and Head Restraint on Maximum Force Score, Transit Time, Gain, and Weight in Bull and Heifer Calves Maximum Force Score Transit Time Average Daily Gain Body Weight Cortisol a Effect Levels % F b sec F kg/d F kg F nmol/ L F HF 10-day 29.4a a a day 21.6b 15.1b b Goad HR a a b 16.1b Sex Bulls a a a 78.7 Heifers b 276.6b 95.3b SEM c Note. HF = handling frequency; HR = head restraint; SEM = standard error of mean. Means with different letters (a or b) in each effect are significant, p <.05. a Cortisol assayed at 80 days. b F value for each main effect. c Pooled standard error of the mean. TABLE 2 Effect of Handling Frequency, Goad, and Head Restraint on Maximum Force Score and Transit Time Within Period in Bull and Heifer Calves Effect Levels F a 1 Day Maximum Force Score (%) Day 20 Day 40 Day 60 Day 80 F Day 1 Transit Time (sec) HF 10-day a 28.7a 29.8a a 18.1a 19.5a day 22.1b 14.9b 16.6b b 13.7b 14.6b Goad a b HR a 35.6a a b 22.6b b Sex Bulls Heifers SEM b Day 20 Day 40 Day 60 Day 80 Note. HF = handling frequency; HR = head restraint; SEM = standard error of mean. Means with different letters (a or b) within each effect are significant, p <.05. a F value for the interaction of handling frequency, goad, head restraint, and sex with period (Day 1 to Day 80). b Pooled standard error of the mean. TT than cattle handled at 20-day intervals. The MFS for cattle in the HR+ treatment was33.0%higher(p<.03)thanhr and15.5%higher(p<.02)fortt.cattledeveloped an overall aversion to being handled more frequently and restrained in the head gate. The negative response to frequent handling was pronounced during the earlier periods ( 40 days), and the aversion to the head gate was more pronounced in the latter stages ( 40 days) of the study (Table 2). The overall MFS and TT were similar 12

11 EFFECTS ON CALVES BEHAVIOR 13 for cattle receiving and not receiving the goad (p >.05). Overall ADG was not affected by the HF, EG, and HR treatments (p >.05), and bulls had greater (p <.01) gains than heifers (Table 1). The interaction between HF and HR was significant for MFS (p <.04) and TT (p <.02). The difference in MFS between HR+ and HR in the HF10 group was 64.0% while the difference between HR+ and HR in HF20 was 1.3% (Figure 4). Similarly, the difference in TT between cattle in HR+ and HR in the HF10 group was 31.7%, whereas it was only 1.3% between HR+ and HR in the HF20 treatment (Figure 5). Bulls who were head gate restrained showed a 33.0% higher MFS (p <.03) and a 12.0% higher TT (p <.05) compared to head gate restrained heifers. Bulls who were not head gate restrained showed a 24.0% lower MFS and an 11.4% lower TT compared to nonrestrained heifers (Figures 6 & 7). The interaction between handling frequency and period was significant(p <.03) for MFS (Figure 8), suggesting that the animals handled every 10 days became habituated to being frequently handled as the MFS decreased over time. Among the animals handled at 20-day intervals, the MFS decreased up to 40 days but increased thereafter. The interaction between HR and period was significant (p <.01) for MFS and TT (Figure 9). The MFS and TT of cattle who were restrained in the head gate increased FIGURE 4 score. Interaction between handling frequency and head restraint for maximum force

12 FIGURE 5 Interaction between handling frequency and head restraint for transit time. FIGURE 6 Interaction between head restraint and sex for maximum force score. 14

13 FIGURE 7 Interaction between head restraint and sex for transit time. FIGURE 8 Interaction between handling frequency and period for maximum force score. HF10-d = handling frequency, 10-day interval; HF20-d = handling frequency, 20-day interval. 15

14 16 GOONEWARDENE ET AL. FIGURE 9 Interaction between head restraint and period for maximum force score (MFS) and transit time (TT). over time up to 60 days, whereas the MFS and TT either remained the same or decreased over time in the cattle that were not head gate restrained. The interaction of Handling Frequency Head Restraint Period was significant (p <.01) for MFS and TT (Table 3). When animals were head gate restrained and handled every 10 days, the MFS and TT increased over time. When the head gate was not used, MFS and TT decreased over time. However, among the calves that were handled every 20 days, the MFS and TT were similar over time for those that were either restrained or not restrained in the head gate. At Day 80 of the study, serum CORT levels were higher (p <.05) for cattle handled every 20 days compared to those handled every 10 days (Table 1), and heifers had higher (p <.05) levels of CORT than bulls. The interaction between handling frequency and sex was significant (p <.05) for CORT, and levels in heifers compared to bulls were 134% higher in the 10-day handling treatment and 194% higher in the 20-day handling treatment (Figure 10).

15 EFFECTS ON CALVES BEHAVIOR 17 TABLE 3 Interaction Between Handling Frequency, Head Restraint, and Period for Maximum Force Score and Transit Time Maximum Force Score (%) Transit Time (sec) HF 10-Day HF 20-Day HF 10-Day HF 20-Day Period HR+ HR HR+ HR HR+ HR HR+ HR 1-day day day day day SEM a Note. HF = handling frequency; HR = head gate restraint; SEM = standard error of measurement. a Pooled standard error of the mean. FIGURE 10 Interaction between handling frequency (d = days) and sex for cortisol. Linear and quadratic equations that were significant (p <.05) for MFS and TT by EG and HR treatments, sex and handling frequency are shown in Table 4. The MFS and TT of bulls handled at 10-day intervals who were not restrained in the head gate decreased (Equations 1 4), and all the regression coefficients were negative. However, when 10-day HF bulls were head gate restrained without the use of the electric goad (Equation 5) the response was quadratic, showing an initial increase in MFS

16 18 GOONEWARDENE ET AL. TABLE 4 Linear and Quadratic Trends by Treatment Combination and Sex for Calves Handled at 10-Day and 20-Day Intervals Equation Number Handling Frequency (in days) Treatment Combination Sex Y X Equation Polynomial p 1 10 EG+ HR Bull MFS D Y = X Linear < EG+ HR Bull TT D Y = X Linear < EG HR Bull MFS D Y = X Linear < EG HR Bull TT D Y = X Linear < EG HR+ Bull MFS D Y = X Quad < X EG+ HR+ Heifer TT D Y = X Linear < EG+ HR+ Bull TT D Y = X Linear < EG+ HR+ Bull MFS D Y = X Linear < EG+ HR Heifer MFS D Y = X + Quad < X EG+ HR Heifer TT D Y = X X 2 Quad <.01 Note. EG+ = goad; EG = no goad; HR+ = head restraint; HR = no head restraint; MFS = maximum force score (%); TT = transit time (sec). followed by a decrease suggesting some habituation to the stimuli. The MFS and TT for bulls in the EG+ and HR+ treatment remained constantly high throughout the study (27 46% for MFS and sec for TT), suggesting that there was very little habituation to the stimuli. When both the HR and EG were used on heifers, MFS and TT increased, showing a greater hesitancy of cattle to move forward toward the stimulus in the chute (Equation 6) as the study progressed. Among the animals handled every 20 days, linear trends were significant (p <.05) for MFS and TT of bulls in the EG+ HR+ (Equations 7 & 8). Quadratic effects were significant (p <.01) for MFS and TT of heifers in the EG+ and HR treatment (Equations 9 & 10). DISCUSSION In a study where the behaviors of bulls and steers restrained for blood testing were observed, 51% of the bulls and 66% of the steers were either calm or showed little agitation in the cattle squeeze; 9% of bulls and 3% of steers were extremely agitated; and the rest were intermediate (Grandin, 1993b). Although in our study we observed the behavior of cattle approaching the squeeze, our results are similar to Grandin s, as 52% needed no stimulus (PFR Category 1) to get them to move over a predetermined distance, but 5% needed maximum stimulation (PFR Category 5).

17 EFFECTS ON CALVES BEHAVIOR 19 This study demonstrates that of the three treatments, HF, HR, and the EG, calves responded more negatively to the first two and less negatively to the third. However, when head gate restraint was used on animals that were handled more frequently (10 days), the negative behavioral responses were amplified. Grandin et al. (1994) suggested that a research area that needs to be addressed is the effect of a mildly aversive treatment versus a severely aversive one on the tendency of cattle to resist changing a learned behavior. Our study showed that responses to mildly aversive treatments such as frequent handling habituate over time. However, when a painful or uncomfortable stimulus such as a head restraint is combined with a milder stimulus, the behavioral responses do not decrease or stabilize even by 80 days on test. The aversion to being head gate restrained may be due to a combination of several factors, such as decreased freedom of movement, pain, discomfort, and the sudden noise caused by the closing of the head gate. The background noise at the head gate from the motor that operated the hydraulic system was 70 ± 2dB (average), whereas closing the head gate increased the noise level to 99.8 ± 6.3 db. Elevated CORT levels have been reported in calves restrained in a head gate (Cooper, Evans, Cook, & Rawlings, 1995). The Restraint Factor Bull calves that were not restrained in a head gate required less effort to handle and moved more quickly with time, irrespective of whether or not they were goaded (Table 4). Thus, the treatment affecting the ease of handling was primarily restraint in the head gate. Whenever it was not used, the animals were easier to handle. This was supported further by the finding that bulls and heifers showed linear increases in TT over time (Table 4) when subjected to both the goad and the head gate. Grandin (1993b) reported that the action of squeezing was significantly more aversive to bulls and heifers than being weighed on a scale. Although the goad is deemed to be stressful, the stimulus (zap) is instantaneous and, over time, may not be remembered by cattle as a distasteful experience. The head restraint, however, may be uncomfortable and sometimes painful, especially when animals try to free themselves from it. Grandin (1993a) reported that getting hit with the head gate was more aversive to cattle than blood collection using a halter restraint. Painful Experiences Remembered Animals have been shown to remember painful experiences and maintain the same behaviors even after the painful experience has been removed (Grandin et al., 1994). When the same facilities are repeatedly used for veterinary treat-

18 20 GOONEWARDENE ET AL. ments, animals are reluctant to enter the weigh scale and the processing area because they learn to associate that facility with pain (Ewbank, 1961). In extreme situations such as electronic immobilization, a single experience may be adequate for animals to associate the environment or locality with pain and remember it for a long time (Grandin, 1993a). Evidence shows that cattle modify their behavior relative to the severity, frequency, and duration of the stimulus; previous experience; and learning (Boivin, Le Neindre, Garel, & Chupin, 1994; Grandin et al., 1994; Hutson, 1980; Kabuga & Appiah, 1992). Stressors, Habituation, and Aversion Walking through chutes, standing to be weighed, and sorting are considered mild stressors, whereas dehorning without an anaesthetic and electro-immobilization are considered extremely severe (Grandin, 1993a). Other management practices such as the use of mechanical or electric goads, drenching, application of halters, blood collection, rectal temperature measurement, and head gate restraint are ranked in between. Even among these moderate treatments, animals subjected to specific combinations would show responses that may decline, increase, or remain constant over time, depending on the degree of pain or discomfort. With repeated treatments given frequently, the animal may become habituated gradually to milder stimuli. In animals subjected to severe treatments more frequently, such as HR, an aversion may build up over time. Young calves become easier to handle, and flight distances are reduced with repeated handling. Mature cows show little change (Kabuga & Appiah, 1992). Mechanical goads and sticks frequently are used to move cattle, whereas whips and electric goads are less common. Although it was not statistically significant, our study showed that when the goad was used on animals, overall MFS and TT increased by 21.2% and 11.6%, respectively (Table 1). Goaded animals needed more force and walked more slowly than those not subjected to the goad, and this was significant with repeated use at 80 days (Table 2). In general, we expect that it would require less force and that animals will move more quickly if an electric goad is not used repeatedly. Bulls, steers, and heifers are known to respond differently to management stressors (Burrow, Seifert, & Corbet, 1988; Hinch & Lynch, 1987; Warriss, 1990). Overall, bulls reacted more strongly than did heifers to being head gate restrained (Figures 6 & 7). We recommend that frequent restraint in the head gate be avoided, especially for bulls, and that any processing or treatment administration be combined and done less frequently. The level of serum CORT has been used as a measure of stress in cattle (Cooper et al., 1995; Wohlt, Allyn, Zajac, & Katz, 1994). As shown by their CORT levels (Table 1), cattle handled at 10-day intervals appeared to be less stressed than those handled at 20-day intervals. This observation is consistent with the decrease in MFS in

19 EFFECTS ON CALVES BEHAVIOR 21 thehf10treatmentfrom1dayto80daysandthedecreaseinmfsinthehf10calves compared to HF20 on Day 80 of the study (Table 2). Frequent handling of cattle can make them less excitable and therefore reduce the level of stress. It is plausible that the 10-day HF calves, having gone through the same experience on eight previous occasions, became easier to move through the handling facility and were not as stressed at the end of their travel. As the CORT was assayed once on Day 80 of the study, it gives only a general idea of the cumulative effects of all the treatments. Our study showed higher CORT levels in heifers compared to bulls, and heifers appeared to be more stressed than bulls. Heifers are reported to show higher CORT levels than bulls (Henricks, Cooper, Spitzer, & Grimes, 1984). COSTS OF PRODUCTION Animals who are easily handled require less labor, and this can result in lower costs of production (Kabuga & Appiah, 1992). If unfavorable behavior patterns are built up among cattle over time due to stressful handling, more time and effort may be required to work such cattle. This will no doubt add to labor costs. In our study, the force required to move animals increased for certain treatments such as HF10 and HR+, and the speed of movement decreased. We have shown that when more than one treatment is applied, the responses are not only additive but also multiplicative. This could limit the efficient use of labor, especially in large cattle production operations. CONCLUSIONS Cattle developed an early aversion to frequent handling, which accommodated over time, and an aversion to being restrained in the head gate midway through the study. The effects of handling and restraining cattle in the head gate were multiplicative as cattle responded less negatively to the stimulus of frequent handling. When it was combined with a head gate hold, however, they responded more negatively. The behavioral response to head gate restraint was more pronounced in bulls than in heifers. Bull calves became easier to handle over time when the head restraint was not used, and this was independent of the use of the electric goad. Handling frequency, the use of a goad, and head gate restraint had no effect on average daily gain suggesting no chronic compromise of their welfare. However, management practices such as restraining cattle in the head gate, especially bulls, should either be done less frequently or combined with other milder practices. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Animal Industry Division of Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development provided financial support for this project.

20 22 GOONEWARDENE ET AL. We appreciate the Kinsella Ranch staff s assistance in working with the cattle at the different stations throughout the trial. REFERENCES Berg, R. T., Makarechian, M., & Arthur, P. F. (1990). The University of Alberta beef breeding project after 30 years a review (Department Animal Science, University of Alberta). Annual Feeders Day Report, 69, Boissey, A., & Bouissou, M. (1988). Effects of early handling on heifers subsequent reactivity to humans and to unfamiliar situations. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 20, Boivin, X., Le Neindre, P., Garel, J. P., & Chupin, J. M. (1994). Influence of breed and rearing management on cattle reactions during human handling. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 39, Burrow, H. M., Seifert, G. W., & Corbet, N. J. (1988). A new technique for measuring temperament in cattle. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production, 17, Canadian Council of Animal Care. (1993). Guide to the care and use of experimental animals (Vol. 2). Ottawa, Canada: Author. Cooper, C., Evans, A. C. O., Cook, S., & Rawlings, N. C. (1995). Cortisol, progesterone and beta-endorphin response to stress in calves. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 75, Ewbank, R. (1961). The behavior of cattle in crushes. Veterinary Record, 73, Fordyce, G., Dodt, R. M., & Wythes, J. R. (1988). Cattle temperament in northern Queensland: Factors affecting temperament. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 28, Grandin, T. (1993a). The effect of previous experiences on livestock behavior during handling. Agri-Practice, 14, Grandin, T. (1993b). Behavioral agitation during handling of cattle is persistent over time. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 36, 1 9. Grandin, T., Odde, K. G., Schutz, D. N., & Behrns, L. M. (1994). The reluctance of cattle to change learned choice may confound preference tests. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 39, Henricks, D. M., Cooper, J. W., Spitzer, J. C., & Grimes, L. W. (1984). Sex differences in plasma cortisol and growth in the bovine. Journal of Animal Science, 59, Hinch, G. N., & Lynch, J. J. (1987). A note on the effect of castration on the ease of movement and handling of young cattle in yards. Animal Production, 45, Hutson, G. D. (1980). The effect of previous experience on sheep movement through yards. Applied Animal Ethology, 6, Kabuga, J. D., & Appiah, P. (1992). A note on the ease of handling and flight distance of Bos indicus, Bos taurus and their crossbreeds. Animal Production, 54, Snell, E. J. (1964). A scaling procedure for ordered categorical data. Biometrics, 20, Statistical Analysis System Institute, Inc. (1990). SAS User s Guide: Statistics. Cary, NC: Author. Warriss, P. D. (1990). The handling of cattle pre-slaughter and its effects on carcass and meat quality in sheep. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 28, Wohlt, J. E., Allyn, M. E., Zajac, P. K., & Katz, L. S. (1994). Cortisol increases in plasma of Holstein heifer calves from handling and method of electrical dehorning. Journal of Dairy Science, 77,