Humancattle interactions in group housing

Satu Raussi
a,b,*
a
MTT, Agricultural Engineering Research (Vakola), Vihti, Finland
b
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine/Animal Hygiene University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Abstract
In traditional European tie stall barns the stockperson has close interaction with the cattle several
times a day. New barns are, however, mostly loose housing units where the animals are group housed
and normally have space to evade people. As group housed cattle can be less habituated to humans,
they may be more difcult to handle compared to individually housed and they may become fearful of
people. Fear is a negative feeling and continuous fear causes stress. That is why cattle should not be
fearful of humans. Fear of humans can be avoided with positive human contact, which is especially
effective to young calves. However, regularity of positive interactions is also important.
The number of cattle per farm is increasing in Europe. The farmer is, therefore, facing the question
of howto manage all the work at the farm. Professional stockpeople are difcult to nd and the labour
is expensive compared to the price of milk or meat. Technology could be a solution to these problems.
This situation will lead to reduced humancattle interactions and increased cattlemachine inter-
actions. Thus, in modern European cattle husbandry, the time to individual handling and care of cattle
will diminish, despite the fact that the individual care has been highly valued. The question is also, do
we need individual handling of cattle or should we instead develop group handling methods. Cattle do
not necessarily want to interact with humans apart from the situation when people offer them
something to eat. A group of cattle is also known to alleviate the stress experiences of its members. If
the welfare of cattle is to be secured, a need for individual care will remain. Absolutely reliable
automatic instruments for health detection of cows have not existed until now and thus, the
stockperson has had to identify individual cows from the group. Humancattle interaction studies
are mainly done with individually housed animals. Therefore, the effect of group housing and group
size on humancattle interactions needs to be studied.
# 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Humancattle interactions; Group housing; Individual housing; Handling; Behaviour; Calf; Cow;
Bull
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262
*
Tel.: 358-9-224-251; fax: 358-9-224-6210.
E-mail address: satu.raussi@mtt.fi (S. Raussi).
0168-1591/02/$ see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0 1 6 8 - 1 5 9 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 1 3 - 7
1. Introduction
Cattle are highly gregarious animals, and housing them in groups instead of individually
is a step towards their improved welfare (Bouissou et al., 2001). However, humancattle
interactions may differ when comparing group housing with individual housing. Gyorkos
et al. (1999) reported that a considerable proportion of group housed heifers and cows are
difcult for humans to handle because they have not had sufciently individual handling as
calves.
In the future, cattle husbandry in Europe faces some matters that will have a measurable
impact on humancattle interactions. Firstly, the number of big farms is increasing. This
means an increase in the number of animals per unit. Thus, one stockperson will be
responsible for and have an impact upon an increasing number of animals and their well-
being. In consequence, the time available to handle each animal individually will diminish.
Technology is increasingly implemented in cattle husbandry, like automatic feeding and
milking systems, which may in turn reduce humancattle interactions. Humancattle
interactions are reduced partly, because technology enables one person to keep more
animals and partly, because technology takes over normal handling procedures. In the
Nordic countries individual handling of dairy cows is appreciated because milk production
has traditionally been based on family farms where the family has earned their living from
the limited number of high yielding valuable cows. Besides, in the Nordic countries it is
reasonable in dairy husbandry to keep a few high yielding cows instead of many low
yielding cows because during the winter cattle are normally housed in insulated and heated
barns and building and heating costs per animal are high. However, nowadays farmers have
to consider bigger units with more animals.
New cattle buildings are usually loose housing units, where the animals are group
housed and have, thus, more opportunities to move than they have in the traditional tie stall
barns. In loose housing systems, the cattle also have more space to evade people, and this
makes them more difcult to restrain and to handle. If the habituation to humans is poor,
the animals may become fearful of humans. The behaviour of a stockperson inuences the
animals' fear of humans. The negative stress response of an animal is a consequence of
fear, which is why fear is a hazard for animal welfare and even for productivity (Hems-
worth et al., 1993) (Fig. 1).
Humananimal interactions are certainly an area that is not yet properly understood.
Including the effects of environment and species companions into the studies makes it even
more complicated. Many of the humancattle interaction studies are done with individually
Fig. 1. A model of humananimal relationships in animal production (Hemsworth and Coleman, 1998).
246 S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262
housed animals, subjecting them to different types of human handling and observing
afterwards the effects of handling on their behaviour and physiology. The aim of this
chapter is to reviewstudies on humancattle interactions froma group housing perspective.
2. The quality of interactions
Humananimal interactions can be tactile, visual, olfactory, gustatory, or auditory
(Hemsworth and Coleman, 1998). Daily feeding, cleaning, and milking actions are the
most usual events in humancattle interactions. Interactions with young calves can start as
early as from birth by cleaning the calf, and by helping it to suckle its mother or to drink
from a bucket. Practices like ear tagging, dehorning, re-grouping, loading and transport,
and medical operations also happen at an early age. The handling of dairy heifers is very
intensive. The heifers are inseminated for the rst time, maybe they are re-grouped, their
rst calving occurs, and they are milked for the rst time after calving. Among older dairy
cows interactions with humans are more stable, and normally the stockperson can predict
the behaviour of an older cow and vice versa as they both become habituated to one
another.
Many of the routine husbandry practices can be dened as negative to the animals, like
ear tagging, dehorning, loading, medical operations, vaccinations, and hoof care, though
some of them enhance their welfare in the long term. Out of the total number of tactile
interactions the percentage of negative interactions between humans and animals appears
to determine the animal's fear of humans, and in order to overcome this fear the number
of positive humananimal interactions should be increased (Hemsworth and Coleman,
1998).
Very little is actually known about what motives a cow might have to approach humans.
Boivin et al. (1998b) found that the acceptance of human contact (brushing and stroking)
by beef calves was more the result of a habituation process than of a positive reinforcement.
Heifers showed similar responses to gain hand feeding, gentling or control treatment in a
study of Pajor et al. (2000) thus, none of these treatments were more attractive to the heifers
than the others. However, one major incentive for an animal to approach a human is
certainly food. When food was present, sows would approach the aversive handler as
readily as the pleasant handler (Seabrook and Mount, 1993). Jago et al. (1999) concluded
that feeding had a greater impact than handling on the young calves' responses to humans.
Pigs can associate feeding (rewarding experience) with their handler, and this second-order
conditioning result in pigs that are less fearful of humans (Hemsworth et al., 1996b). In
order to improve the humananimal relationship, the animal should probably play an active
role during interactions. Simple passive presence of a human seems to have about the same
effect on humananimal relation as brushing during restraint (Le Neindre et al., 1993).
In a study with individually housed veal calves, Lensink et al. (2000c) found that the
calves seemed to have a positive experience when a stockperson stroked them and when
they were able to suck the ngers of the stockperson. These interactions reduced the
number of withdrawals from familiar and strange humans in both familiar and unfamiliar
environments, whereas the number of approaches increased (Lensink et al., 2000c). Veal
calves that originated from units where the farmer behaved positively towards them were
S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262 247
less fearful of people, easier to load, and had a lower incidence of accidents at the
slaughterhouse than calves originating from farms where the farmers had shown pre-
dominantly negative behaviour to the calves (Lensink et al., 2000d). Therefore, positive
behaviour by the farmer towards her/his calves reduces calves' emotional and behavioural
responses to handling and transport.
Calm talk and touching of cows can be categorised as a good stockpersoncow
interaction as opposed to impatient talk and touching, which can be categorised as poor
interaction (Seabrook, 1994a). By using an aversive learning technique, Pajor et al. (2000)
found that hitting and shouting were especially aversive to dairy cows. According to
Seabrook (1994a) the following traits describe a good-interaction and a high-achievement
stockperson: condent, consistent, emotionally stable, self-sufcient, independent, low
aggression, and not affected by the system. Kiley-Worthington (1990) outlined that a good
handler of circus animals understands the animals' body language and is able to control
her/his own (cited in English, 1991).
The nature of humananimal interactions depends on animal, human, and environmental
factors. The age, phase of life, breed, genetics, and early as well as previous experiences are
important factors from the animal's point of view. The animal's cognitive, learning and
motor abilities, its excitability, habits, and current motivational state are also important
factors (Lewis and Hurnik, 1998). The stockperson's attitude, behaviour, gender, previous
experiences, and culture are known to be important in the handling of animals. The cultural
factor is emphasised when for instance we look at cattle management in Europe compared
to nomadic Fulani cattle management in Africa. The cattle husbandry of Fulani men rests
on behavioural techniques, whereas in Europe cattle are controlled primarily by physical
means like fences (Lott, 1979).
Cattle husbandry contains quite an amount of practices done by the stockperson that are
nasty to the animals and happen early in their lives. To overcome these, an attempt should
be made to carry out more positive than negative interactions to avoid animals' developing
fear of humans.
3. Animals fear of people
In humananimal interaction studies, methods similar to those applied in animal welfare
studies have been used. Different measures have been developed to gauge animals'
reactions to familiar and unfamiliar humans, with particular attention paid to the animals'
fear of humans. The effects of fear on animal behaviour and physiology are shown in Fig. 2.
The following measures have often been charted from animals to evaluate the effects of
positive and/or negative human treatments: approach or avoidance behaviour to humans,
heart rate, blood corticosteroid levels, morbidity, and productivity (Hemsworth and
Coleman, 1998).
To be able to be fearful of humans, animals must recognise individual humans as a
potential source of danger, pain, or distress. However, animals may also recognise humans
as a part of the social environment that can supply positive things like food, shelter, and
positive companionship. Cattle can differentiate individual humans (Taylor and Davis,
1998), and the cows most probably use multiple cues, like the face or height of the person,
248 S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262
to discriminate between people (Rybarczyk et al., 2001). The colour of peoples' clothing is
also used in discrimination. Studies of cows by Munksgaard et al. (1997) and Rushen et al.
(1999) have shown that a gentle person is approached more closely by the cows than an
aversive person, but only when the person wears her/his normal colour clothing. However,
Boivin et al. (1998a) found that beef calves are able to discriminate a familiar stockperson
even when this person changes clothes. Also the place of occurrence affects the reactions of
animals to humans (De Passille et al., 1996). Dairy cows learned to avoid the same handler
in one location, where they were treated aversively, but approached the same person in
another location, where they were treated gently (Rushen et al., 1998).
In many interaction studies, animals are handled positively, neutrally, or negatively by
humans. The outcome of these studies has been that the most fearful animals have been
negatively handled, and least fear has been observed among positively handled animals
(Table 1). The minimal handling treatment has been somewhat intermediate compared to
the other two treatments (Hemsworth et al., 1986, 1987a). In addition, the inconsistent
treatment of pigs (mixture of pleasant and unpleasant human handling) resulted in an
equally poor humananimal relationship as the negative treatment (Hemsworth et al.,
1987a).
According to Boissy et al. (2001) animals can develop different strategies in response to
stressors. Passive coping and apathy can follow negative unavoidable stressful events. If the
animals have an opportunity to respond actively to the stressful events, they are supposed to
be more reactive to further environmental changes. The former phenomenon was observed in
an experiment where repeated changes in the physical and social environment of calves
Fig. 2. The aversive stimulus activates a central fear system that produces a constellation of behaviours (Davis,
1992). ``With permission, from the Annual Review of Neuroscience, Volume 15 #1992 by Annual Reviews
http://www.AnnualReviews.org''.
Table 1
General responses of cows under different handling treatments (according to Seabrook, 1994a)
Action of cow Pleasant handling Aversive handling Author
Mean entry time to parlour (s) 9.9 16.1 Seabrook (1984)
Flight distance (m) 0.5 2.5 Seabrook (1984)
Dunging in the parlour (no. per hour) 3.0 18.2 Seabrook (1984)
Free approaches to human (no. per minute) 10.2 3.0 Seabrook (1984)
Yield/cow/year (l) 5191 4527 Seabrook (1986)
S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262 249
increased their behavioural reactivity to novelty (Boissy et al., 2001). So, if humananimal
interactions are unavoidable and negative in nature, animals may passively cope with the
fearful situation, but if the animals can respond to negative interactions with humans, they
will probably be more reactive in the future interactions.
Fear of humans can cause one-third to one-fth of productivity variation across dairy,
pig and poultry farms (Hemsworth and Coleman, 1998). Aversive handling of milking
cows and the presence of an aversive handler during milking increased the cows residual
milk by 70%, and, thus, decreased their milk yield (Rushen et al., 1999). However, the
aversive handling compared to the gentle handling of cows in a recent study of
Munksgaard et al. (2001) did not decrease the milk production or increase the residual
milk of cows. A possible explanation could be that the aversive treatment was rougher
and the level of fear probably higher in the study of Rushen et al. (1999) compared to the
study of Munksgaard et al. (2001) resulting not only in behavioural changes but also in
production changes.
In a study of 31 commercial dairy farms, Breuer et al. (2000) found that fear of humans
accounted for 19% of the variation in milk yield between farms. All the studied animals
were grazing outdoors all year round, milked two times a day, and calved during winter. A
herd size was 100200 predominantly HolsteinFriesian cows. The cows were milked in a
herringbone milking-shed and offered supplementary feeding during milking. Fear was
assessed in this study by measuring the approach behaviour of cows to an experimenter in a
standard test, and this approach behaviour was signicantly correlated with farm pro-
ductivity. Milk yield, protein, and fat were lower on farms where animals showed less
approach behaviour to the experimenter. The authors suggested that humananimal
interactions might be implicated in fearproductivity relationships, so there is a potential
to improve cow productivity by improving humancow interactions (Breuer et al., 2000).
However, Purcell et al. (1988) did not nd cows' approach behaviour to humans to be a
useful indicator of the cows' milk production. The criticism of using animals' approach to
or avoidance of humans as an indicator of fear is that the behaviour does not necessarily
mean that cows are unafraid or fearful of humans. Animals may be hungry and, thus,
approach humans even if they are afraid of humans, or they may just not be interested in
interactions with humans although they are not fearful. Nevertheless, approach or
avoidance reactions are the best indicators of how animals feel about humans and are
widely used in science.
As positive human handling lowers animals' fear of people, their physiological
responses might also be affected. Prolonged human handling lowered the heart rate
and cortisol responses of heifers before and after the open-eld tests (Boissy and Bouissou,
1988). Nevertheless, positive human handling does not necessarily reduce animals' general
fearfulness. Positive handling diminishes animals' fear of humans in particular, but not for
instance animals' fear of inanimate objects as Jones and Faure (1981) demonstrated with
chickens and Hemsworth et al. (1996a) with pigs and cattle.
Cattle are able to feel fear and discriminate people based on their previous experiences.
Calf can even develop a general fear of people arising from aversive handling (De Passille
et al., 1996). Fear has negative effects on behaviour and possibly also on production. Thus,
fear of humans should be avoided. It seems, however, that aversive handling has to be quite
rough to affect the milk production of cows.
250 S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262
4. Effects of animal factors on humancattle interactions
4.1. Genetics and breed
Grandin (1993, 1994) suggested that there are easily agitated, excitable genetic lines in
cattle and pigs, and that cattle with excitable temperaments appear to cause handling
problems. Furthermore, agitated behaviour seems to be very persistent over time. Boivin
et al. (1994) noticed that the signicant differences in aggressiveness of Limousin heifers
towards humans derived from the sire. Domestication favoured species and individuals in
these species that could tolerate human proximity. Stricklin (2001) points out that selection
of farm animals during the last 50 years has been based mainly on production traits (for
instance increased milk and egg production) almost forgetting the traits that were important
for domestication, like social behaviour and animals responses to humans. Therefore, it is
possible that farm animals are moved to a state beyond domestication with regard to these
behavioural traits (Stricklin, 2001).
Cattle may react differently to human handling because of their breed. For instance,
Salers heifer calves remained motionless for longer in a handling test at 8 months of age
than did Limousin heifer calves (Boivin et al., 1994). Bos indicus and its crosses may have
more agitated temperaments than Bos taurus breeds. However, gentle handling has
benecial effects also on the reactivity of zebu crossed calves to humans (Becker and
Lobato, 1997).
4.2. Phase of life and early experiences
Maternal aggression can occur among cows, and a recently calved cowcan be aggressive
towards its handler because of an instinct to defend its calf (Grandin, 1999). However,
around parturition the cow is in a sensitive phase and ready to bond to her calf. This
sensitivity can also make her more sensitive to humans. Human presence at the time of
calving can therefore, reduce fear of humans in primiparous cows' and facilitate their
behavioural responses to rst milkings (Hemsworth et al., 1987b, 1989).
The behavioural development of an animal is to a great extent determined by the early
social environment (Creel and Albright, 1987). Gyorkos et al. (1999) discovered that the
rst week of the calf's life is the most sensitive period as regards human handling. They
noticed that the social relations of calves housed in groups of 25 animals are relatively
weak until 23 days of age, but they become more substantial at the age of 47 days. Jago
et al. (1999) suggested that handling of calves during the rst 2 days after birth may be of
importance to the subsequent humancattle interactions. Krohn et al. (2001) demonstrated
that handling of new-born calves combined with hand feeding during the rst 4 days of life
increases the motivation of an individually reared calf to approach a human. In this study,
the control groups received no handling, and the other treatments were: handling and hand
feeding during days 69, and 1114 after birth. Weaning is also an upheaval moment in the
animal's development that can be propitious for the establishment of positive human
animal relations (Le Neindre et al., 1993). If the characteristics of behavioural systems are
determined at a particular developmental stage, the mechanisms generating those char-
acteristics can still operate through life (Bateson, 1979). So, if a stockperson does not
S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262 251
handle the calves in the rst week of their lives, it may still be possible to create a good
humancalf relation later.
The regularity of humancattle contact is also of great importance and may be necessary
to maintain a good relationship. In a study of Boissy and Bouissou (1988), heifer calves
received additional human handling in the form of brushing and leading with a halter for 3
days per week from 0 to 3 months old, 3 days per week from 6 to 9 months old, and 3 days
per month from 0 to 9 months old. The heifers were later tested at 15 months of age to
investigate their fearfulness and ease of handling. Compared to the other treatments, the
animals which were handled from 0 to 9 months old were the least reactive in the presence
of humans, had the lowest ight distances, were the easiest to lead, and the fastest to
capture. It is possible that only prolonged handling at an early age truly inuences human
cattle relationships (Boissy and Bouissou, 1988). Nevertheless, these results do not
eliminate the importance of early contact because the prolonged treatment started already
after the calves were born.
How persistent then is the early good experience between human and animal? Boivin
et al. (2000) found that until the age of 13 weeks, the gentle treatment of lambs together
with hand feeding during their rst 4 weeks of life had an inuence on the lambs'
responses to a familiar stockperson. Not only the appearance but also the disappearance
of a familiar stockperson affected the lambs' responses. This supports the conception of
social bonding between lambs and their stockperson (Boivin et al., 2000). Sato et al.
(1983) found no effect of early caressing (rst 35 days of age) on calves' later tractability.
During caressing, calves were housed individually, but afterwards they were grouped.
Early caressing had little effect on avoidance behaviour during handling situations that
differed from the caressing procedure. Enhanced human care of group housed Holstein
Friesian calves at the age of 37 days resulted in good manageability up to the 50th day of
the calves' lives, and extra handled calves were then eager to approach an unfamiliar
person (Gyorkos et al., 1999).
Breed and heredity affect humancattle interactions and it is not well known how the
selection for production traits affects the behavioural features (like the responses to
humans) of cattle. Early experiences are important to cattle and therefore, it is effective
to have positive interaction with a newborn calf (during the rst few days of the calf's life).
However, it does not mean that positive handling of cattle is not useful or important later
and continuously in the animals' lives.
5. Effects of human factors on humancattle interactions
Attitude was the most consistent predictor of the stockpersons' behaviour in commercial
pig units compared to the other job related variables (Coleman et al., 1998). The
stockpersons' attitude score consisting of their opinion as regards the characteristics of
cows and their attitude to working with cows was correlated with their behaviour (Breuer
et al., 2000). According to Grandin (2000) the most important factor determining the
quality of animal handling is the farm manager's attitude. In Northern Europe the manager
is normally also the stockperson, as cattle husbandry is based on family farms. Seabrook
(1994b) as well accentuated the role of the manager. In those units where the manager was
252 S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262
eager to interact with the animals and was only seldom aggressive to the animals, also the
staff showed very little aggression to the animals.
The veal farmer's opinion that calves are sensitive led to gentle contact between the
farmer and the calves. The farmer's positive behaviour towards animals was associated
with improved animal productivity, and the farmer's behaviour was largely dependent on
her/his attitude (Lensink et al., 2000a). The positive attitude of the veal farmers towards the
sensitivity of the calves and towards the importance of cleaning the unit led to a lower
disease level. The veal calves were less reactive to people if the farmer behaved positively
towards them and if there were several stockpersons working on the farm (Lensink et al.,
2000b).
Women are often supposed to be better stockpeople than men. In a study of 15 veal
farms, Lensink et al. (2000a) found that female stockpeople had a more positive attitude
with regard to the importance of interactions with the calves, and they also showed a more
positive behaviour towards the calves. Male farmers had more instrumental attitudes
towards animals, whereas female farmers were more emphatic (Hills, 1993). English
(1991) pointed out that the emotional relationship between stockperson and animal is
largely discounted, however, an ability such as empathy plays an important part in
stockpersonanimal interactions.
Seabrook (1986) listed aspects of stockpeople and animals from systems achieving high
performance levels. As regards the animals the general signs of a good relationship are
short ight distances, a tendency to move towards the stockperson, quietness in the
presence of the stockperson, and less defecation in the presence of the stockperson. A good
stockperson touches the animals, talks to the animals, likes to be with the animals, spends
more of the available time with the animals, touches and communicates more with the
animals when they are under stress. The stockperson is the `high ranking animal' but can
also have a more submissive and caring role. In addition Seabrook (1986) gave a working
denition of the term stockmanship ``knowing the behaviour pattern of animals and groups
of animals within one's charge and having the ability to recognise small changes in the
behaviour of any one animal or of all the animals collectively''.
Human behaviour is largely dependent on our attitudes. Apositive attitude towards cattle
most probably leads to positive humancattle interactions. In general, women are more
capable of empathy and are more positive in their behaviour to cattle and, thus, are better
cattle handlers than men.
6. Housing effects on humancattle interactions
6.1. Separation from peers
Group housed cattle are normally distressed when separated from their group (Kilgour,
1975; Purcell and Arave, 1991; Boissy and Le Neindre, 1997). Social separation induced
increased struggling, vocalisation, heart rate, and plasma cortisol concentrations in heifers.
The longer heifers had social contact with conspecics before separation, the greater was
their distress at separation. Behavioural responses to separation decreased when conspecics
were brought back (Boissy and Le Neindre, 1997). It is, therefore, recommendable to avoid
S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262 253
separating individual cattle and instead restrain animals in small groups (Ewbank, 2000),
especially if they are not handled often.
Veissier et al. (1998a) observed veal calves' reactions in a weighing scale during
weighing. Calves that were previously housed in groups of four came out from the
weighing scale more excited compared to the individually housed calves. The authors gave
two explanations for these housing effects on weighing: group housed calves were
separated from their penmates for weighing, and blood sampling together with separation
from their pen mates caused stress. The other explanation was that normal contact with the
stockperson might be less efcient in group-housed animals compared to those housed
individually (Veissier et al., 1998a) (Table 2).
In a study of Veissier and Le Neindre (1992) Aubrac heifers, previously reared in groups
of four animals, were tested in a novel enclosure on 10 successive days, either alone or in
their rearing groups of four animals. In the enclosure there was a man standing on day four.
Animals that were tested alone approached and sniffed the man signicantly more than did
the heifers that were tested as a group, and group tested animals were in general less ready
to move in the novel enclosure. The authors concluded that separation enhances investiga-
tion behaviour and therefore, may facilitate active adaptive strategies, here interaction with
a human. Also, Grignard et al. (2000) noticed that visual contact with peers during a human
handling test modied individual calves' reactions to the handler. The beef calves were
easier to handle in the absence of peers compared to the situation when the peers were
present. The reason for this is probably that the test animal will attempt to rejoin the group
when the animals have visual contact.
6.2. Isolation rearing
Rearing calves in isolation enables the calves to better cope with human handling on the
commercial dairy farm (Purcell and Arave, 1991). A calf's behaviour towards a human
after weaning and re-grouping differed when comparing a group reared heifer calf to her
twin sister reared in isolation. Group housed calves did not approach the stockperson as
Table 2
Housing effects on humancattle interactions
Individual housing Group housing Authors
Approach behaviour
to humans
Faster, more frequent Slower, less frequent Lensink et al. (2000e), Mogensen
et al. (1999), Purcell and Arave (1991)
Separation/restraint Easier Can be difficult Boissy and Le Neindre (1997), Veissier
et al. (1998a)
Loading Faster, less
effort needed
Slower, more
effort needed
Lensink et al. (2000e), Trunkfield
et al. (1991)
Male aggressiveness
towards humans
More aggressiveness
(isolation rearing)
Less aggressiveness Price and Wallach (1990)
Impact and efficiency
of human contact
Greater Minor Veissier et al. (1998a)
Space to elude people Normally smaller Normally bigger
Disease control Easier Can be difficult
254 S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262
much as did previously isolated calves (Purcell and Arave, 1991) (Table 2). It appears that
the farmer has a special place in the social environment of an early-weaned calf, in other
words, the calf can become socialised to human.
However, long isolation from peers may negatively affect humancattle interactions.
Hand rearing of bull calves until 7 months of age in physical isolation from their
conspecics resulted in aggressiveness towards their handlers at 19 months of age (Price
and Wallach, 1990). Those bull calves that were group housed never attacked their handler,
and threatened the handlers less than the calves housed in isolation did. The explanation
could be that the bulls living in physical isolation had not learned the expression of normal
submissive behaviour, whereas the group reared bulls had learned how and when to limit
their aggressive behaviours through agonistic interactions with their penmates. On the
other hand, the isolated bulls may have perceived the handler as a sexual rival and that
might have been their reason for attacking (Price and Wallach, 1990) (Table 2). Webster
et al. (1985) also discuss that if calves are kept in total isolation from other calves and
humans with solid sides and fronts, it is likely that they will become fearful and easily
startled.
6.3. Individual versus group rearing
Group housing can protect animals from chronic stress responses. Higher basal cortisol
levels were found in group-housed calves (housed in groups of 15 and in groups of 4 calves)
than in individually housed calves. This can be due to sampling stress being greater in
group-housed calves (Trunkeld et al., 1991; Veissier et al., 1998a). However, higher
cortisol responses to ACTH were found in individually housed calves compared to group
housed calves (Dantzer et al., 1983; Friend et al., 1985; Raussi et al., 2002). These results
may indicate that individually housed calves suffer from chronic stress. Paterson and
Pearce (1989) studied the effect of pleasant and unpleasant human handling on group
housed (8, 9 or 10 animals) gilts' behaviour and stress physiology. No signs of chronic
stress, except fear of humans, were observed among gilts handled unpleasantly. Thus,
housing gilts in groups may have protected them from chronic stress responses. However,
fear of humans can as well be generated in group-housed animals as in individually housed
animals by aversive handling. Hemsworth and Barnett (1991) found that aversive handling
of pigs, either individually or as a group of ve animals, generated fear of humans and had
adverse effects to the growth performance in the pigs.
In a study of Pearce et al. (1989) group housed male pigs were given either pleasant or
unpleasant human handling either in barren or in enriched pens. Enriched environments
reduced pigs' fear of humans independently of the human handling treatment (Pearce et al.,
1989). Jones (1985) also supported the proposition that early environmental enrichment
may encourage animals' adaptation to novelty and may even reduce fear. He gave an
example of hens having higher fear levels when housed in cages instead of pens. In cattle
the effects of environmental enrichment on fear reactions are not known.
Differences due to housing have been observed in humancattle interactions during the
loading of calves to a truck. Trunkeld et al. (1991) observed that the loading of group
reared veal calves (reared in groups of 15 calves plus one group of 30 calves) onto a truck
went much slower compared to the loading of crate reared veal calves. Crated calves had,
S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262 255
however, more difculties than group reared in boarding a walk-on ramp (Table 2). Also
cortisol levels in plasma and saliva increased signicantly more following handling and
transport in crated calves than in grouped calves. In a study of Lensink et al. (2000e)
individually housed calves were easier and quicker to load to a truck compared to the
pair housed calves. The quality of handling had also an effect when the calves were
loaded one by one to a truck, more effort was needed to load minimally handled calves
than positively handled animals, and signicantly lower heart rates were observed in
calves that were exposed to additional positive contact with the stockperson (Lensink
et al., 2000e).
Observations from calves preference test in a Y-maze test construction where the calves
could choose between an unfamiliar calf or an unfamiliar person showed that pair housed
calves, no matter if they were treated positively or minimally by the stockpersons,
preferred to approach the unfamiliar calf instead of the unfamiliar person. However,
individually housed calves did not show any preference for either the unfamiliar human or
the unfamiliar calf (Raussi et al., 2002). From these ndings, it could be assumed that
group housed calves always prefer a species companion rather than human closeness, no
matter if they have previously been treated minimally or gently by humans. Penmates are
present all the time, and short, regular human contact cannot overcome the attachment to
species companions.
There is some evidence that group housing makes the handling of calves more difcult.
Individually housed calves were observed to be easier to handle compared to pair housed,
they approached humans more quickly, spent more time with humans, and were easier to
load (Table 2). However, frequent additional positive contact with the stockperson also
seemed to improve the humancalf relation in pair housed calves. Lensink et al. (2000e)
concluded that positive contact is especially important to group housed calves in order to
improve handling.
6.4. Outdoors versus indoors, nursed with the dam versus fed by humans
Interactions between human and cattle are different if they happen outdoors than inside
the barn. Outdoors, the human body looks smaller to animals compared to indoors. Also the
effect of the human hand, voice, and smell is less marked outdoors than inside the barn
(Seabrook and Mount, 1993). Webster et al. (1985) found that calves suckling their dams at
pasture were more timid in the presence of humans than early-weaned calves (housed
either individually or in groups) that were more dependent on the stockperson. Also Le
Neindre et al. (1995) observed that rearing Limousin heifers outdoors made them less
docile than heifers reared indoors. Heifer calves' reactions to handling were different
depending on the way they were reared. Traditionally reared calves (separation from the
mother after the rst day of life and afterwards restricted suckling the dam with human
assistance) were easy to handle and never aggressive to their handlers. Range reared calves
were born outside in the paddock and afterwards remained with their mothers. Eleven of
these 41 range reared calves showed aggressive behaviour towards humans when restrained
to a corner (Boivin et al., 1994). All year round outdoor rearing effects on humancattle
interactions are probably due to less handling and less human proximity compared to cattle
reared inside the barn with only summertime grazing.
256 S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262
Mogensen et al. (1999) found no long-term effects on the humancalf relation in a study
where the housing treatments were staying the rst 12 weeks in (1) an open single pen, (2) a
closed single pen, (3) a group of ve calves, and (4) a group of ve cows and calves. It was
observed that calves housed in groups of cows and calves sought less human contact than
calves in other treatments. Group housed calves were also more reluctant to approach a
human than individually housed calves (Table 2). In their study, all the animals were
handled in accordance with good Scandinavian practise on an experimental farm (Mogen-
sen et al., 1999). Calves that were kept their rst 4 days with their dams and allowed to suck
the dam were more fearful of humans even when they were 1518 months old. The other
treatments in this study were rearing individually with no contact to the dam, and rearing
calf and dam together while the calf was not allowed to suck the dam (Krohn et al., 1999).
Probably, in the presence of the dam the calves socialised on her and this may have blocked
for socialisation on humans. The calves reared with the dam and allowed to suckle also had
the least contact with humans during the rst days of life (Krohn et al., 1999).
Group housing may impair the handling of cattle in a way that group housed cattle are
not so willing to interact with humans compared to individually housed. Group housed
calves choose to interact with conspecics rather than humans although receiving positive
interactions with humans. Living in groups can nevertheless protect animals from chronic
stress. Rearing cattle in total isolation from conspecics changes their behaviour and can
also affect humancattle interactions negatively. Aversive handling of animals causes fear
of humans in individually housed animals as well as in group housed. Enriching the
housing environment may lower animals' general fearfulness. Dam reared animals can be
difcult to handle, especially if they live outdoors at pasture.
7. Suggestions to solutions to the handling problems in group housed cattle
The French Institute for Husbandry has trained farmers since 1980 at 1-day sessions, and
the number of accidents with animals has not increased, though the number of animals per
farmer has increased (Chupin and Sarignac, 1998). In the USAwhere the manager employs
a stockperson, it is especially important that the manager trains the employees to handle the
animals properly (Grandin, 2000). According to Girdler and Seabrook (1990) after
training, stockpeople have a desire to do their job properly, and they realise that they
have a lot of things to learn. Hemsworth et al. (1993) designed a training programme for
improving the attitudinal and behavioural proles of stockpeople in the pig industry.
Improvements in attitude and behaviour of stockpeople have resulted in reduced fear and a
tendency to better reproduction in pigs (Hemsworth et al., 1993). Training programmes
should also include veterinarians and articial inseminators with emphasis on how to avoid
fear-causing operations with cattle.
Learning is fundamental to animal well being because it enables animals to cope with
and adapt to changes in the environment. The learning ability of cattle and learning
techniques (like habituation and operant conditioning) could be more efciently used in
cattle handling and management. Habituation of animals to intensive farming conditions
should be used, like introducing dairy heifers to the milking parlour before they calve
(Kilgour, 1987). It is possible for instance to accustom some `key' animals in a group to a
S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262 257
certain handling procedure and to take these animals as models for others. Knowledge of
the social identity and the most favourable period for social awareness would help when
selecting these demonstrator animals (Veissier et al., 1998b).
Safety and familiarity with the environment, for instance non-slippery oorings,
adequate illumination, good air conditioning, proper handling equipment and places
are examples of environmental factors that are likely to improve humancattle interactions
and make handling of cattle easier and safer.
Considering animal welfare, the stockperson should spend time with the animals, and
food together with other pleasant stimuli should be used to reward desired behaviours of an
animal and provide positive interactions with the animals (Seabrook, 1994b). Daily
inspection just by walking among the group of cattle facilitates animals' habituation to
humans. Methods to handle cattle in large groups should be developed to prevent
separation stress. It is also possible to try to eliminate humans from a negative handling
procedure to avoid animals developing fear of humans (Hemsworth and Coleman, 1998). A
combination of both individual and group housing of cattle could be one solution. Smits
and de Wilt (1991) pointed out that the combination of at rst individual housing and later
group housing may be even more protable than individual or group housing alone. For
instance, it could be a good idea to house newborn calves individually for the rst week
before they are introduced to a large group fed via computer controlled milk feeding.
There are many possibilities to avoid problems on handling of group-housed cattle.
Improving the barn environment, training farm managers and stockpeople on cattle
behaviour and handling, using the learning abilities of animals and simply motivating
people to have positive interactions with cattle.
8. Conclusion
Group housing may impair humancattle interactions and handling, because group
housed cattle have more available space to avoid humans, are more difcult to separate
from their peers, and choose to interact with conspecics rather than with humans.
Furthermore, individual human care may be more effective on individually housed
compared to group housed cattle. However, there is no reason to believe that positive
human handling would be ineffective on group housed cattle. Humans can be accepted as
social partners to cattle if species companions are not available. Humans are especially
interesting to cattle and positive interactions are more effective when food is offered during
interactions. Group housing has many advantages in relation to cattle welfare, for instance
it protects animals from chronic stress and enriches the environment. Besides, group living
and tolerating humans were important traits affecting domestication of cattle. Animals'
reactions to humans are specic to humans and depend on the animals' previous
experiences with humans. Animals' fear of people can only be overcome by positive
handling, normally followed by the animals' habituation to humans. It is worthwhile to
have positive interactions with very young calves, because handling seems to be the most
effective then. The more time the stockperson can spend in positive contact with the cattle
the easier the humancattle interactions are, and the safer the handling is. Positive human
cattle interactions are perhaps more important to group housed than individually housed
258 S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262
cattle, because group housed animals become very easily socialised to pen mates and to a
lesser extent to humans.
Future studies should place more emphasis on the interaction between environment and
stockmanship. We should try to ask the animals whom they want to take into their social
environment, and what role humans have in the social environment of the group of cattle?
The effect of group size on humancattle interactions needs to be claried. This matter
poses questions such as: how many individuals is a qualied stockperson able to recognise
in group-rearing systems, and how much does the effect of positive human handling differ
in group housing compared to individual housing of cattle?
References
Bateson, P., 1979. How do sensitive periods arise and what are they for? Anim. Behav. 27, 470486.
Becker, B.G., Lobato, J.F.P., 1997. Effect of gentle handling on the reactivity of zebu crossed calves to humans.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 53, 219224.
Boissy, A., Bouissou, M.-F., 1988. Effects of early handling on heifers' subsequent reactivity to humans and to
unfamiliar situations. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 20, 259273.
Boissy, A., Le Neindre, P., 1997. Behavioral, cardiac and cortisol responses to brief peer separation and reunion
in cattle. Physiol. Behav. 61, 693699.
Boissy, A., Veissier, I., Roussel, S., 2001. Behavioural reactivity affected by chronic stress: an experimental
approach in calves submitted to environmental instability. Anim. Welfare 10, 175185.
Boivin, X., Le Neindre, P., Garel, J.P., Garel, J.P., Chupin, J.M., 1994. Influence of breed and rearing
management on cattle reactions during human handling. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 39, 115122.
Boivin, X., Garel, J.P., Mante, A., Le Neindre, P., 1998a. Beef calves react differently to different handlers
according to the test situation and their previous interactions with their caretaker. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
55, 245257.
Boivin, X., Garel, J.P., Durier, C., Le Neindre, P., 1998b. Is gentling by people rewarding for beef calves? Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 61, 112.
Boivin, X., Tournadre, H., Le Neindre, P., 2000. Hand-feeding and gentling influence early-weaned lambs'
attachment responses to their stockperson. J. Anim. Sci. 78, 879884.
Bouissou, M.-F., Boissy, A., Le Neindre, P., Veissier, I., 2001. The social behaviour of cattle. In: Keeling,
L.J., Gonyou, H.W. (Eds.), Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp.
113145.
Breuer, K., Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Matthews, L.R., Coleman, G.J., 2000. Behavioural response to
humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 66, 273288.
Chupin, J.-M., Sarignac, C., 1998. How to train cattle breeders to handling of bovine? In: Veissier, I., Boivin, A.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, 2125 July,
Clermont-Ferrand, France, p. 117.
Coleman, G.J., Hemsworth, P.H., Hay, M., 1998. Predicting stockperson behaviour towards pigs from attitudinal
and job-related variables and emphaty. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 58, 6375.
Creel, S.R., Albright, J.L., 1987. Early experience. Veterinary clinics of North America: food animal practice 3,
251268.
Dantzer, R., Mormede, P., Bluthe, R.M., Soissons, J., 1983. The effect of different housing conditions on
behavioural and adenocortical reactions in veal calves. Reprod. Nutr. Develop. 23, 501508.
Davis, M., 1992. The role of the amygdala in fear and anxiety. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 15, 353375.
De Passille, A.M.B., Rushen, J., Ladewig, J., Petherick, C., 1996. Dairy calves' discrimination of people based
on previous handling. J. Anim. Sci. 74, 969974.
English, P.R., 1991. Stockmanship, empathy and pig behaviour. Pig Vet. J. 26, 5666.
Ewbank, R., 2000. Handling cattle in intensive systems. In: Grandin, T. (Ed.), Livestock Handling and Transport,
2nd ed., CABI Publishing, UK, pp. 87102.
S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262 259
Friend, T.H., Dellmeier, G.R., Gbur, E.E., 1985. Comparison of four methods of calf confinement. Part I.
Physiology. J. Anim. Sci. 60, 10951101.
Girdler, M., Seabrook, M.F., 1990. Training effectiveness; success, etc. J. Agric. Manpower Soc. 1, 514.
Grandin, T., 1993. Agitated wild behaviour is persistent over time in exotic crossbred cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav.
Sci. 36, 19.
Grandin, T., 1994. Solving livestock handling problems. Vet. Med. 89, 989998.
Grandin, T., 1999. Safe handling of large animals. Occup. Med. 14, 195212.
Grandin, T., 2000. Introduction: management and economic factors of handling and transport. In: Grandin, T.
(Ed.), Livestock Handling and Transport, 2nd ed., CABI Publishing, UK, pp. 114.
Grignard, L., Boissy, A., Boivin, X., Garel, J.P., Le Neindre, P., 2000. The social environment influences the
behavioural responses of beef cattle to handling. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 68, 111.
Gyorkos, I., Mezes, M., Szucs, E., Kovacs, K., Borka, G., Gabor, G., Volgyi-Cs k, J., 1999. Behavioural
development of HolsteinFriesian cows and calves. Acta Agronomica Hungarica 47, 3952.
Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., 1991. The effects of aversively handling pigs, either individually or in groups, on
their behaviour, growth and corticosteroids. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 30, 6172.
Hemsworth, P.H., Coleman, G.J., 1998. HumanLivestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity
and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals. CAB International, New York, NY, USA, 153 pp.
Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Hansen, C., 1986. The influence of handling by humans on the behaviour,
reproduction and corticosteroids of male and female pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 15, 303314.
Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Hansen, C., 1987a. The influence of incosistent handling by humans on the
behaviour, growth and corticosteroids of young pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 17, 245252.
Hemsworth, P.H., Hansen, C., Barnett, J.L., 1987b. The effects of human presence at the time of calving of
primiparous cows on their subsequent behavioural response to milking. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 18, 247
255.
Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Tillbrook, A.J., Hansen, C., 1989. The effects of handling by humans at calving
and during milking on the behaviour and milk cortisol consentrations of primiparous dairy cows. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 22, 313326.
Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Coleman, G.J., 1993. The humananimal relationship in agriculture and its
consequences for the animal. Anim. Welfare 2, 3351.
Hemsworth, P.H., Price, E.O., Borgwardt, R., 1996a. Behavioural responses of domestic pigs and cattle to
humans and novel stimuli. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 50, 4356.
Hemsworth, P.H., Verge, J., Coleman, G.J., 1996b. Conditioned approach-avoidance responses to humans: the
ability of pigs to associate feeding and aversive social experiences in the presence of humans with humans.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 50, 7182.
Hills, A.M., 1993. The motivational bases of attitudes toward animals. Soc. Anim. 1, 111128.
Jago, J.G., Krohn, C.C., Matthews, L.R., 1999. The influence of feeding and handling on the development of the
humananimal interactions in young cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 62, 137151.
Jones, B., 1985. Fearfulness and adaptability in the domestic fowl. IRCS Med. Sci. 13, 797800.
Jones, B.R., Faure, J.M., 1981. The effects of regular handling on fear responses in the domestic chik. Behav.
Process. 6, 135143.
Kiley-Worthington, M., 1990. Animals in Circuses and Zoos. Chiron's World. Eco-Farms Publishing, Basildon,
Essex.
Kilgour, R.J., 1975. The open-field test as an assessment of the temperament of dairy cows. Anim. Behav. 23,
615624.
Kilgour, R.J., 1987. Learning and the training of farm animals. Vet. Clin. North Am.: Food Anim. Practise 3,
269284.
Krohn, C.C., Foldager, J., Mogensen, L., 1999. Long-term effect of colostrum feeding methods on behaviour in
female dairy calves. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A Anim. Sci. 49, 5764.
Krohn, C.C., Jago, J.G., Boivin, X., 2001. The effect of early handling on the socialisation of young calves to
humans. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 74, 121133.
Le Neindre, P., Trillat, G., Chupin, J.M., Poindron, P., Boissy, A., Orgeur, P., Boivin, X., Bonnet, N., Bouix, J.,
Bibe, B., 1993. Genetic and epigenetic variation factors in the relationships between humans and animals. In:
Nichelmann, M., Wierenga, H.K., Braun, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied
Ethology. Berlin, pp. 161168.
260 S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262
Le Neindre, P., Trillat, G., Saps, J., Menissier, F., Bonnet, J.N., Chupin, J.M., 1995. Individual differences in
docility in Limousin cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 73, 22492253.
Lensink, B.J., Boissy, A., Veissier, I., 2000a. The relationship between farmers' attitude and behaviour towards
calves, and productivity of a veal units. Ann. Zootech. 49, 313327.
Lensink, B.J., Veissier, I., Florand, L., 2000b. The farmer's influence on calves' behaviour, health and
production of a veal unit. Anim. Sci. 72, 105116.
Lensink, B.J., Boivin, X., Pradel, P., Le Neindre, P., Veissier, I., 2000c. Reducing veal calves' reactivity to
people by providing additional human contact. J. Anim. Sci. 78, 12131218.
Lensink, B.J., Fernandez, X., Cozzi, G., Florand, L., Veissier, I., 2000d. The influence of farmers' behaviour
towards calves on animals' responses to transport and quality of veal meat. J. Anim. Sci. 79, 642652.
Lensink, B.J., Raussi, S., Boivin, X., Pyykkonen, M., Veissier, I., 2000e. Reactions of calves to handling depend
on housing condition and previous experience with humans. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 70, 187199.
Lewis, N.J., Hurnik, J.F., 1998. The effect of some common management practices on the ease of handling of
dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 58, 213220.
Lott, D.F., 1979. Applied ethology in a nomadic cattle culture. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 5, 309319.
Mogensen, L., Krohn, C.C., Foldager, J., 1999. Long-term effect of housing method during the first 3 months
of life on humananimal relationship in female dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A Anim. Sci. 49,
163171.
Munksgaard, L., de Passille, A.M., Rushen, J., Thodberg, K., Jensen, M.B., 1997. Discrimination of people by
dairy cows based on handling. J. Dairy Sci. 80, 11061112.
Munksgaard, L., de Passille, A.M., Rushen, J., Herskin, M.S., Kristensen, A.M., 2001. Dairy cows' fear of
people: social learning, milk yield and behaviour at milking. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 73, 1526.
Pajor, E.A., Rushen, J., de Passille, A.M.B., 2000. Aversion learning techniques to evaluate dairy cattle handling
practices. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 69, 89102.
Paterson, A.M., Pearce, G.P., 1989. Boar-induced puberty in gilts handled pleasantly or unpleasantly during
rearing. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 22, 225233.
Pearce, G.P., Paterson, A.M., Pearce, A.N., 1989. The influence of pleasant and unpleasant handling and the
provision of toys on the growth and behaviour of male pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 23, 2737.
Price, E.O., Wallach, S.J.R., 1990. Physical isolation of hand-reared Hereford bulls increases their
aggressiveness towards humans. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 27, 263267.
Purcell, D., Arave, C.W., 1991. Isolation vs. group rearing in monozygous twin heifer calves. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 31, 147156.
Purcell, D., Arave, C.W., Walters, J.L., 1988. Relationship of three measures of behaviour to milk production.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 21, 307313.
Raussi, S., Lensink, B.J., Boissy, A., Boivin, X., Pyykkonen, M., Veissier, I., 2002. The impact of social and
human contacts on calves' behaviour and stress responses. Anim. Welfare, in press.
Rushen, J., Munksgaard, L., de Passille, A.M.B., Jensen, M.B., Thodberg, K., 1998. Location of handling and
dairy cows' responses to people. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 55, 259267.
Rushen, J., de Passille, A.M.B., Munksgaard, L., 1999. Fear of people by cows and effects on milk yield
behavior and heart rate at milking. J. Dairy Sci. 82, 720727.
Rybarczyk, P., Koba, Y., Rushen, J., Tanida, H., de Passille, A.M., 2001. Can cows discriminate people by their
faces? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 74, 175189.
Sato, S., Shiki, H., Yamasaki, F., 1983. The effects of early caressing on later tractability of calves. Jpn. J.
Zootech. Sci. 55, 332338.
Seabrook, M.F., 1984. The psychological interaction between the stockman and his animals and its influence on
performance of pigs and dairy cows. Vet. Rec. 115, 8487.
Seabrook, M.F., 1986. The relationship between man and animals in managed systems. In: Cole, D.J.A.,
Brander, G.C. (Eds.), Ecosystems of the World 21. Bioindustrial Ecosystems, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp.
211222.
Seabrook, M., 1994a. Psychological interaction between the milker and the dairy cow. Dairy systems for the 21st
century. St. Joseph, MI, Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., pp. 4958.
Seabrook, M.F., 1994b. The effect of production systems on the behaviour and attitudes of stockpersons. In:
Huisman, E.A., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Zodiac Symposium on Biological Basis of
Sustainable Animal Production. EAAP Publication No. 67. Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 252258.
S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262 261
Seabrook, M.F., Mount, N.C., 1993. Good Stockmanshipgood for animals, good for profit. J. R. Agric. Soc.
Engl. 154, 104115.
Smits, A.C., de Wilt, J.G., 1991. Group housing of veal calves. In: Metz, J.H.M., Groenestein, C.M. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Symposium on New Trends in Veal Calf Production. EAAP Publication No.
52. Pudoc Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 6166.
Stricklin, W.R., 2001. The evolution and domestication of social behaviour. In: Keeling, L.J., Gonyou, H.W.
(Eds.), Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 83110.
Taylor, A.A., Davis, H., 1998. Individual humans as discriminative stimuli for cattle (Bos taurus). Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 58, 1321.
Trunkfield, H.R., Broom, D.M., Maatje, K., Wierenga, H.K., Lambooy, E., Kooijman, J., 1991. Effects of
housing on responses of veal calves to handling and transport. In: Metz, J.H.M., Groenestein, C.M. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Symposium on New Trends in Veal Calf Production. EAAP Publication No.
52. Pudoc Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 4043.
Veissier, I., Le Neindre, P., 1992. Reactivity of Aubrac heifers exposed to a novel environment alone or in groups
of four. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 33, 1115.
Veissier, I., de la Fe Ramirez, A.R., Pradel, P., 1998a. Nonnutritive oral activities and stress responses of veal
calves in relation to feeding and housing conditions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 57, 3549.
Veissier, I., Boissy, A., Nowak, R., Orgeur, P., Poindron, P., 1998b. Ontogeny of social awareness in domestic
herbivores. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 57, 233245.
Webster, A.J.F., Saville, C., Church, B.M., Gnanasakthy, A., Moss, R., 1985. The effect of different rearing
systems on the development of calf behaviour. Br. Vet. J. 141, 249264.
262 S. Raussi / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80 (2003) 245262