PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10906394

Aversion learning techniques to evaluate dairy cattle handling practices.

Abstract

Fear of humans is a source of stress for Holstein dairy cattle and can result when animals are handled aversively. We used aversion learning techniques to determine which handling practices cattle find most aversive. In an aversion race, the cows are repeatedly walked down a race and treatments applied when they reached the end; the time and force required for cows to walk down the race are measured. The animal learns to associate walking down the race with the treatment received; if the treatment is aversive, the animal will take more time and require more force to reach the end of the race than if the treatment is positive. In experiment 1, 54 cows were assigned to four treatments (hit/shout, brushing, control, and food). Treatments of 2-min duration were applied three times a day for 4 days. Cows on the hit/shout treatment took more time and required more force to walk through the race than cows on other treatments, while brushed cows took longer to move through the race than cows given food. In experiment 2, 60 cows were assigned to five treatments (electric prod, shouting, hitting, tail twist, and control). Treatments of 1-min duration were applied three times a day for 3 days. Cows on the shout and electric prod treatments took more time and required more force to walk down the race than cows on the control treatment. In experiment 3, thirty-six 1-1.5-year-old heifers were assigned to three treatments (hand feeding, gentling, or control) applied as in experiment 2. Treatments did not affect the time or force required to walk down the race. The aversion race successfully discriminated between handling treatments that differ greatly in aversiveness but lacked sensitivity to distinguish between treatments that were similar. Although many procedural factors must be considered, aversion learning techniques are an effective method to determine which handling practices cattle find aversive or rewarding.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

EA Pajor, J Rushen, de Passillé AM. 2000-09-01. Aversion learning techniques to evaluate dairy cattle handling practices.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1591(00)00119-2

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗