Biomedical subjects

X Boivin

Publications and source records attributed to X Boivin.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

The presence of the dam affects the efficiency of gentling and feeding on the early establishment of the stockperson-lamb relationship.

This experiment investigates how the maternal presence influences the effect of additional human contact in early age on the reaction of lambs to their stockperson. Forty twin-born lambs were involved in this experiment during their first 4 days of life. Ten pairs of twins were reared artificially from 12h of age. One of each litter (AF, n=10) received 6.5+/-0.7 sessions of 30min of separation from the twin (with a wire fence) with 5min of gentling and feeding (suckling from a bottle and from a bucket fitted with a rubber teat). The other twin was not treated. Ten pairs of twins were reared with their dam and received 6.6+/-0.7 sessions of treatment. One twin (MAF, n=10) received the same treatment as AF. The other twin (M, n=10) was separated for 30min from the dam and had no human contact. From the age of 70+/-7h, lambs were tested in a social isolation test (alone for 1min, with the familiar stockman for 2min, alone again for 1min), in a Preference test (2min) between an unfamiliar maternal ewe and the familiar stockman, and, for the AF lambs only, in a Preference test (2min) between their familiar and an unfamiliar stockman. Eight AF lambs learned to suck on their own from the bucket of milk by the end of the experiment compared to only one MAF (P<0.001). AF lambs approached the human more (P<0.01), vocalised less (P<0.01) and walked less (P<0.01) during the social isolation test than animals reared with their mother (M and MAF). AF did not show any preference between the stockman and the unfamiliar maternal ewe while M and MAF lambs chose the ewe (P<0.05). AF lambs discriminated the familiar from an unfamiliar stockman only if they had learned to suck from the bucket during the treatment. Nevertheless MAF lambs vocalised less than M (P<0.05) in the presence of the stockman during the social isolation test, indicating a possible reduction of isolation distress. These results show that artificially reared lambs are preferentially motivated to interact with a familiar human after only a few days of contact. Moreover, they highlight the difficulty in using a feeding reward to improve the human-lamb relationship when lambs are reared permanently with their dams. However, the results suggest that early gentling improves the human-animal relationship whatever the maternal environment.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2001

Do beef cattle react consistently to different handling situations?

Beef cattle responses to handling depend partly on the genetic characteristics of the animals. However, the various methods used in order to assess these responses differ to a great extent. The purpose of this work is to study the relationship between two different situations extensively used to evaluate cattle reactions to handling. Moreover, the genetic variability of cattle responses to these two handling situations was investigated. Behavioural reactions of 245 Limousine heifers, from 10 sires, were evaluated both in a docility test and in a crush test. In the docility test, a human tried to lead and then to maintain the animal in the corner of a pen during 30 consecutive seconds, with a maximum duration of the test of 3.5min. A docility score summarised the animal's behavioural reactions to the test. The crush test procedure consisted of social isolation of the animal in a crush, with the head maintained in a head gate (5min), then exposure to a stationary human (30s), and finally stroking on the forehead (30s). An agitation index for each part of this test was computed from PCA analyses based on agitation behaviours. Sire effect was significant for every part of both tests (P<0.05). Heifers' behavioural responses to the docility test were significantly correlated with their responses to the crush test, when the animals were in isolation (r=0.29; P<0.001), when the human stood motionless in front of the animals (r=0.37; P<0.001), and when the human stroked them (r=0.28; P<0.001). Sires' behavioural reactions to the docility test (computed from their daughters' scores) were correlated with their reactions to the crush test only when the human was present, both when motionless (r=0.88; P<0.001) and when stroking the heifer (r=0.81; P<0.05). No relationship appeared between sires' behavioural reactions to the docility test and their responses to restraint in the crush when the human was absent (P=0.17). Furthermore, the crush test did not reveal the animals which presented aggressive reactions to handling in the docility test. The results exposed in this paper pointed out the existence of a general reactivity of beef cattle to handling, whether the animals are restrained or not, which appears influenced by the sire. Such reactivity is suggested to be mainly a consequence of the animals reactions to humans. The human environment needs to be precisely defined in the handling test procedures before using them as a selection criteria.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2001

Reactions of calves to handling depend on housing condition and previous experience with humans.

This study investigated the influence of stockperson's behaviour and housing conditions on calves' behavioural reactions to people, and behavioural and physiological reactions to handling and short transport. Sixty-four Finnish Ayrshire male calves were used; half of them were housed in individual pens, the other half were housed in group pens of two calves. In both housing conditions half of the calves received minimal contact from the stockperson, while the other half were stroked on their necks and shoulders for 90s a day, after milk meals. The effects of housing and contact with the stockperson on the responses of calves to people, either entering or approaching the pen, were studied. Furthermore, calves' behavioural and physiological (cortisol, heart rate) reactions to being loaded onto a truck, transported for 30min and unloaded were observed. When a person entered the home pen, calves housed by pairs took significantly more time to interact and interacted less frequently with the person than individually housed calves did (p<0.01). Calves that received additional contact interacted for longer time with the unfamiliar person than calves with minimal contact (p=0.02). When a person approached the front of the calves' pens, less withdrawal responses were shown by calves that had received additional contact (p<0.05) than those that had received minimal contact. When the calves were loaded onto the truck, it took more time and effort to load pair housed calves than individually housed calves (p<0.01) and less effort to load calves that had received additional contact (p<0.01) compared to those that had received minimal contact. During loading additional contact calves had lower heart rates (p<0.05) than those that had received minimal contact, while during transport pair housed calves had lower heart rates compared to individually housed ones (p<0.05). For all the observations performed, no interactions were found between housing conditions and human contact.It is concluded that, compared to calves housed individually, calves housed in pairs are less ready to approach humans and less easy to handle. Providing calves with regular positive contacts makes them less fearful of people and improves handling. Due to the greater difficulty in handling calves housed in groups, it is concluded that these animals need to have regular contact with humans.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2000

The social environment influences the behavioural responses of beef cattle to handling.

In cattle, a gregarious species, the social group influences individual stress responses to fear-eliciting situations. As handling can be stressful for farm animals, it can be hypothesised that social partners modify individual responses to handling. The present experiment investigated the effect of the presence or absence of social partners on behavioural reactions of beef calves in a handling test. At the age of 10 months, 38 calves from two breeds (Salers and Limousine) were individually subjected to the docility test, once while in visual contact with four familiar peers, and once in the absence of peers, following a crossover design. The docility test procedure included physical separation from peers (30 s; period 1), exposition to a stationary human (30 s; period 2), and handling by human (30 s-2.5 min, according to the success in handling; period 3). In absence of human (period 1), calves in visual contact with their peers spent more time motionless than when peers were totally absent (P<0.001). The social environment also influenced the duration of handling (period 3); the human required more time to successfully handle calves when peers were present (P<0.05). In conclusion, the presence of peers affects individual calves' reactions to the docility test.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2000

Hand-feeding and gentling influence early-weaned lambs' attachment responses to their stockperson.

Artificially reared herbivores are highly dependent on the stockperson at an early age in order to learn to drink from an artificial milk provider. This period of training may be a determinant for the animals' subsequent responses toward humans. However, long-term responses may also depend on the human contact (e.g., visual, physical interactions, gentling, and handling) provided to the young lambs after this training period. We examined whether different levels of subsequent contact (no visual and physical contact, stroking, and feeding reward) affect long-term attachment responses of lambs to the caretaker that provided the subsequent contact, after a common initial training period for artificial feeding provided by another person. Ewe lambs (n = 45) were artificially reared from multinippled buckets in groups of three. All the lambs were trained by a stockperson (S1) to suck from the bucket (4.4 +/- .3 sessions of 3 min per animal for the first 2 d of life). Subsequently, 15 lambs received no further human contact (T0). Fifteen other lambs received only stroking from a second stockperson (S2) for 6 min three times a day during the first 4 wk (T1). The remaining 15 lambs (T2) were stroked and bottle-fed by S2 during the same posttraining period as for T1. Tests were performed at 4, 6 (just before weaning), 9, and 13 wk of age in an unfamiliar arena marked in a grid pattern. The test procedure included three successive parts: 1) isolation for 1 min; 2) S2 presence for 2 min; and 3) isolation for 1 min. The T0 lambs spent a similar amount of time in the grid square close to S2 regardless of whether he was present. The T1 and T2 lambs spent more time close to S2 than T0 (P < .01), and T2 spent more time close than T1 (P < .05). In the presence of S2, T2 vocalized less (P < .01) than T0, and T1 did not differ from either T2 or T0. The T2 lambs also crossed fewer squares than T0. When S2 left the arena, T2 vocalized more (P < .01) than T0 and more (P < .05) than T1, and T1 had a tendency to vocalize more (P = .08) than T0. Differences persisted with increasing age. Human contact, especially stroking and feeding, during the 4 wk following initial training strongly and durably influenced the lambs' response not only to the appearance but also to the disappearance of a familiar stockperson. This last result supports the idea that lambs could form a social bond with their stockperson.

Animal Feed↗

PubMed2000

Reducing veal calves' reactivity to people by providing additional human contact.

We studied the importance of the stockperson's behavior on veal calf behavior using 22 veal calves housed in individual crates. Eleven calves received minimal contact from the stockperson, and the other 11 calves were stroked and allowed to suck the stockperson's fingers after each meal during the entire fattening period (21 wk). The effects of this additional contact with the stockperson on the calves' responses to people was studied, when in their home environment (crate) or outside their home environment (singly in a novel arena). When tested in their home environment, the calves receiving additional contact withdrew less from the approach of humans (familiar or unfamiliar) (P < .05) compared with control calves. When tested outside the home environment with a human (familiar or unfamiliar) standing motionless, calves that had received additional contact interacted more frequently and for a longer time with the humans and defecated less often compared with control calves (P < .05). In conclusion, being stroked and sucking the stockperson's fingers seemed to be experienced as positive by the calf, because they reduced withdrawal from and increased approaches to familiar and unfamiliar humans in familiar and unfamiliar environments. Such a lower reactivity to people could improve ease of handling, animal performance, and animal welfare.

Animal Husbandry↗

PubMed2000

The impact of gentle contacts on ease of handling, welfare, and growth of calves and on quality of veal meat.

It has been demonstrated previously that regularly stroking and letting calves suck fingers leads to less avoidance and more approach behavior of the calves toward people. To examine whether these positive contacts affect the welfare and productivity of calves and the quality of veal meat we used 22 veal calves housed in individual crates. Half of them received minimal contact with the stockperson (controls), and the other half were given additional gentle contacts around meals, by stroking the calves and allowing them to suck the stockperson's fingers, during the entire fattening period (21 wk). Welfare was assessed through behavioral reactivity (reactions to handling, to surprise stimuli, and to novelty), neuroendocrine responses to stress (cortisol in response to an ACTH challenge, catecholamine-synthesizing enzymes), and health (number of medical treatments, abomasal lesions). Calf productivity was assessed through growth rates and meat quality through glycolytic potential (an estimator of resting glycogen level in muscle), pH, and color. Calves that received gentle contacts were less agitated (P < .01) and tended to defecate less (P = .08) when handled in a cart on wheels than the control calves, but no treatment effects were found in reactivity to novelty and surprise stimuli, responses to ACTH, and catecholamine synthetic potential. Calves given gentle contacts had fewer abomasal lesions than controls (0/11 vs 4/11, P = .05). The glycolytic potential of the semimembranosus muscle was higher in calves that received gentle contacts than in controls (172.6 vs 154.1 micromol/g, P < .05), but no treatment effects were observed on meat pH, meat color, or growth rates. It is concluded that gentling veal calves reduces their reactions to handling. Gentle contacts reduce the reaction to transport shown by differences in glycolytic potential. In addition, the reduction in reactions to handling and the decreased incidence of abomasal lesions can contribute to an improvement of the calves' welfare.

Animal Husbandry↗

PubMed1997

Discrimination between shepherds by lambs reared under artificial conditions.

We studied the ability of 32 lambs reared artificially in groups of four to discriminate between their shepherd and an unknown shepherd. Half of the lambs were bottle fed in isolation by one shepherd during the first 3 wk. The other half was fed alternately by three shepherds. Lambs had no visual contact with humans for the next 3 wk. Lambs were weaned at 6 wk of age and reared together with the minimum human contact necessary for rearing management. Lambs were tested at 3, 6, and 14 wk of age, investigating the effect of the rearing conditions on the response to isolation and to reunion with the known or an unknown shepherd. During tests, lambs were observed 1) in isolation for 1 min, 2) in the presence of a shepherd who entered and squatted at one end of the pen for 1 min, trying to touch the lambs if they approached, 3) again in isolation for 1 min. Early rearing management (one vs three shepherds) had no significant effect on any criteria studied. Lambs vocalized and moved less when in the presence of the shepherd than when isolated. They vocalized less, moved less, approached more quickly, and interacted more with the known than with an unknown shepherd. The difference persisted after 3 wk spent without visual human contact. However, no difference was evident at 14 wk of age. The effect of shepherd knowledge is clearly demonstrated by this experiment after an intensive early period of contact.

Aging↗