OPEN FIELD BEHAVIOR: A REVIEW 1

Temperament, Anxiety, and Open Field Behavior in Livestock Species: A Literature Review

Nicole Girgis

Rutgers University
OPEN FIELD BEHAVIOR: A REVIEW 2

Abstract

The temperament of animals has been a focus of many studies. The temperament, sometimes

called personality, of an animal is its behavior in response to various challenging situations.

However, since fear is the most investigated emotion in animals, the word temperament used

with the meaning of the behavior of an animal in response to a fear causing event. The open

field, or novel arena, test is one of the most common tools used to investigate the fear and

anxiety behaviors experienced by an animal in a novel environment. While the use of open field

tests in rodents has been extensive, only recently has there been a more prevalent use of the open

field test with livestock animals. Open field testing has been performed with cattle, swine, sheep,

and horses and have yielded some results. However, a lack of standardization of the open field

test and the difficulty of repeatability makes it hard to conclude that the behaviors observed are

truly a result of anxiety or fear in livestock animals. It is worth doing continual research in this

area as the knowledge gained may be applied to improving the welfare of livestock animals in

production.

Temperament, Anxiety, and Open Field Behavior in Livestock Species: A Literature Review
OPEN FIELD BEHAVIOR: A REVIEW 3

Introduction

The open-field test was initially used on livestock by Beilharz and Cox

(1967) and Kilgour (1975) and has been the most common test in investigating fear in cattle,

sheep, pigs, and horses. However, despite its widespread use, the methods used and the

interpretation of observations are far from standard. Studies have found that responses of animals

tested are complex and are a mix of exploration, fear, social isolation, and learning ability,

making it difficult to interpret behaviors clearly (dePassillé et al., 1995). Days

Methods

The general format of the open field test is to release a single animal into a novel, empty,

enclosed area and to examine its movement around the arena as well as other behaviors that may

show its fear in response to the novelty of the area. Many open field experiments have been done

with livestock, but there are differences in the way each experimental situation was set up.

The livestock animal used the most in open field testing is cattle, and this review will focus on

the methods used with cattle and swine.

Cattle

Testing is almost always done on one animal at a time in order to prevent any social

interactions between animals from affecting observations of fear behavior (Forkman et al.,

2007). Cattle of different ages are used to see the differences in behaviors due to age. (Forkman

et al., 2007; Rebdo, 1998). The size of the arena varies from 10-12 meters squared for heifers

and calves to 100 meters squared for cows. There is normally a solid wall up to 2.6 meters

squared that surrounds the arena (Forkman et al., 2007). The test has been performed outdoors on

bare earth or indoors in a closed room on plain concrete floor (Rebdo, 1998) or on concrete

covered with sand (Jensen et al., 1997). A grid was created in all of the different arenas varying
OPEN FIELD BEHAVIOR: A REVIEW 4

from 6 to 36 squares (Boissy & Bouissou, 1995; Kilgour et al., 2006; Kilgour, 1975). Some lines

were drawn with paint on the floor, while others were delineated by wire over the arena (Jensen

et al., 1997). In almost every experiment, there is special care taken to introduce the cow into the

arena without human involvement. Therefore, many tests include a starting box that is connected

to the arena and is separated from it by a sliding door that opens with compressed air or by a

human from a distance (Rebdo, 1998; Boissy & Bouissou, 1995; Kilgour, 1975; Jensen et al.,

1997). An external raceway was also used for travel of the cow to the entrance of the arena and

away from the exit of the arena to minimize stress ( Kilgour, 1975). It was a goal of the

experimenters to isolate the cow being tested from visual and audio contact with animals or

humans (Rebdo, 1998). Therefore, human observation of the cows in the arena was disguised.

Some experiments utilized cameras set up above the arena (Rebdo, 1998,7). Other experimenters

used peepholes (Kilgour et al., 2006), one-way glass screens (Boissy & Bouissou, 1995),

observation towers (Kilgour, 1975), or just stood in partial view of the cows (dePassillé et al.,

1995). The experiment would begin with the cow staying for 1 to 5 minutes in the starting box in

order to calm down (Rebdo, 1998; Boissy & Bouissou, 1995; Kilgour, 1975; Jensen et al., 1997).

Those without a starting box were just led directly into the arena (dePassillé et al., 1995; Kilgour

et al., 2006). After the time in the starting box, the door of the starting box would be opened,

allowing the cow to enter into the arena. If the cow didn’t enter the arena, it would gently be

pushed in ( Kilgour, 1975). Once the cow enters, multiple behaviors would be recorded. Some

behaviors deal with the locomotion of the animal, such as its latency to enter the arena or amount

of time running, walking, and standing. Locomotion would also be described by the number of

squares entered or, more specifically, whether those squares are in the center or on the edges

(Jensen et al., 1997). Others behaviors recorded include exploratory behaviors, such as sniffing,
OPEN FIELD BEHAVIOR: A REVIEW 5

or excretory behaviors of defecation and micturition. Vocalization, escape attempts, and tail

movements are also recorded (Forkman et al., 2007). The cow would be observed in the arena

for 3 to 30 minutes (Forkman et al., 2007). For some experiments, the floor was pressure washed

(Boissy & Bouissou, 1995) or the sand covering the floor was changed after each trial (Jensen et

al., 1997).

Swine

The open field test is often used in pigs to test fear. The variables recorded are

movements like lying, standing, exploring, defecation, micturition, and vocalizations like squeals

and grunts. The size of the arena is usually 10 meters squared for piglets up to 8 weeks old and

then is adjusted to the body length of older animals. Testing time is between 5 to 20 minutes.

Usually a long and narrow walkway is used just outside the arena where open field testing is

done as well. Testing has been done indoors on concrete floors, with windows and bulbs to

illuminate the arena (8). In an open field test done by Fraser (1974), the arena was divided into

five equal sections and every minute the number of sections entered was recorded. Vocalizations

of the pigs during testing were recorded on tape and analyzed. The number of short grunts, long

grunts and squeals were counted for each minute. Usually, one pig is tested at a time, but

Fraser’s tests (1974) also had 2 pigs together in the arena in order to compare results. After each

test, the floor was scrubbed (Fraser, 1974).

Results

It is evident that the way open field tests are done in different experiments varies widely,

which can lead to difficulty in a comparing and validating results. The amount of difference

between experiments make some question the reliability of any of the results. However, some

results seem to have been validated by more than one experiment. It was found that latency to
OPEN FIELD BEHAVIOR: A REVIEW 6

enter open field arena and the duration of standing positively correlated with fear. Conversely,

active behaviors correlate with low levels of fear. Therefore, the more number of squares entered

means the animal is experiencing less fear (Boissy & Bouissou, 1995). Also, an older animal will

be more active (dePassillé et al., 1995). Animals that had high stereotypie levels went through

the least squares and vice versa (Rebdo, 1998). It was found that there are more high pitched,

longer, repeated vocalizations in swine who were tested alone rather than in pairs. These sounds

coincide with high levels of excitement (Fraser, 1974). Although these observations were

attributed to fear, there are other factors inherent in the open field test that could have been the

cause of the same behaviors.

Criticisms

There are various criticisms regarding the interpretation of the behaviors displayed in the

open field tests. Most tests used to measure fear in livestock were designed for rodents. This is a

problem because rodents and livestock have different ecological characteristics and motivations.

For example, lab animals are used to enclosed spaces while farm animals are used to open spaces

(Forkman et al., 2007). Since livestock have evolved to be open spaces, some question whether a

open arena is novel enough for a fear inducing experiment. It may be that a novel object must be

added to the arena to see a fear response from an animal (Kilgour, 1975). The varying shapes of

the arenas, either circular or rectangular, may cause differences in results between tests (Walsh &

Cummim, 1976). The size of the arena may affect the locomotion of an animal. A larger space

may increase the amount of squares crossed (Walsh & Cummim, 1976). The surrounding

environment, like the lighting or smell, has rarely been regulated or taken into account when

doing open field tests. There are a variety of factors that may contribute to the behaviors that the

animal in the open field arena is displaying. It may be that the animal is responding to fear, social
OPEN FIELD BEHAVIOR: A REVIEW 7

motivation, curiosity, or all three. A cow may be moving around the arena because it is afraid

and is trying to escape or because it is trying to look for its conspecifics (Boissy & Bouissou,

1995). Also, it is very difficult to test for fear without inducing the stress that livestock

experience from social isolation because separation from the group is necessary (Boissy &

Bouissou, 1995). Due to the novel nature of the open field test, it is quite difficult to repeat an

experiment (Forkman et al., 2007). Therefore, it is hard to have a consensus on how fear related

actions are recognized and measured which is a great downfall in all the open field testing that is

being done (Boissy & Bouissou, 1995).

Conclusion

The open field test is commonly used, but has not yet been validated. Finding the effects

of isolation stress on animals may help distinguish between fear reactions and social stress when

analyzing behaviors of the animal. Investigative behaviors also should be distinguished from

fear behavior. Therefore, the more the open field test is standardized and validated, the more

useful it will be to identify stress in livestock. The ability to identify stress would be immensely

helpful in the agricultural field due to the concern that such emotions will negatively affect

productivity (Forkman et al., 2007). The economic and ethical motivations should drive further

investigation in the area of fear and temperament in livestock animals.

References

Boissy A, Bouissou MF. (1995). Assessment of individual differences in behavioural reactions

of heifers exposed to various fear-eliciting situations. Appl Anim Behav Sci., 46:17–

31.

de Passillé AM, Rushen J, Martin F. (1995). Interpreting the behaviour of calves in an open field

test: a factor analysis. Appl Anim Behav Sci., 45:201–13.

OPEN FIELD BEHAVIOR: A REVIEW 8

Forkman, B.., A., Boissy, M.-C., Salaun, E., Canali, and R.B., Jones. (2007). A critical review of

fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiol. Behav. 000-000.

Fraser, D. (1974). The vocalizations and other behaviour of growing pigs in an “open field” test.

Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 1: 3-16.

Jensen MB, Vestergaard KS, Krohn CC, Munksgaard L. (1997). Effect of single versus group

housing and space allowance on responses of calves during open field tests. Appl

Anim Behav Sci., 54:109–21

Kilgour R. (1975). The open field test as an assessment of the temperament of dairy cows. Anim

Behav., 23:615–24.

Kilgour R., Melville GJ, Greenwood PL. (2006). Individual differences in the reaction of beef

cattle to situations involving social isolation, close proximity of humans, restraint and

novelty. Appl Anim Behav Sci., 99: 21–40.

Olsson, Karin. (2010). A review of methods used to measure temperamental characteristics in

horses. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

Redbo I. (1998). Relations between oral stereotypies, open field behavior, and pituitary adrenal

system in growing dairy cattle. Physiol Behav., 64: 273–8.

Walsh, RN., and Rk Cummim. (1976). The open-field test A critical review. Psychological Bull.,

83:482-504.