PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11248377

Do beef cattle react consistently to different handling situations?

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Grignard, X Boivin, A Boissy, P Le Neindre. 2001-03-29. Do beef cattle react consistently to different handling situations?. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1591(00)00187-8

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↗