Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T18:15:45.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infrared thermography as a non-invasive method for detecting fear-related responses of cattle to handling procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

M Stewart ,
AL Schaefer ,
DB Haley ,
J Colyn ,
NJ Cook ,
KJ Stafford  and
JR Webster
M Stewart*
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour & Welfare, AgResearch Ltd, Ruakura Research Centre, Private Bag 3123, Hamilton, New Zealand
AL Schaefer
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, Alberta, Canada T4L 1W1
DB Haley
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2P5
J Colyn
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, Alberta, Canada T4L 1W1
NJ Cook
Affiliation:
Alberta Agriculture and Food, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, Alberta, Canada T4L IWI
KJ Stafford
Affiliation:
Massey University, Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North, New Zealand
JR Webster
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour & Welfare, AgResearch Ltd, Ruakura Research Centre, Private Bag 3123, Hamilton, New Zealand
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: mairi.stewart@agresearch.co.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to determine whether maximum eye temperature, measured using infrared thermography (IRT), could be a non-invasive technique for detecting responses of cattle to handling procedures. Experiment one used six crossbred heifers randomly assigned to two groups in a crossover design and subjected to i) being hit with a plastic tube on the rump and ii) being startled by the sudden waving of a plastic bag. Experiment two used 32 crossbred bulls randomly assigned to three treatments: i) control, restraint only; ii) electric prod, two brief applications of an electric prod or, iii) startled, as in experiment one, accompanied by shouting. Exit speed (m s−1) was recorded on release from the restraint. Maximum eye temperature was recorded continuously pre- and post-treatment. In experiment one, eye temperature dropped rapidly between 20 and 40 s following both treatments and returned to baseline between 60 and 80 s following hitting and between 100 and 120 s following startling. In experiment two, eye temperature dropped between 0 and 20 s, following both treatments, and returned to baseline by 180 s, following startling plus shouting, but did not return to baseline for five minutes following electric prod. Exit speed tended to be faster following the electric prod. In conclusion, IRT detected responses that were due possibly to fear and/or pain associated with the procedures and may therefore be a useful, non-invasive method for assessing aversiveness of handling practices to cattle.

Keywords

animal welfarecattleeye temperaturefearhandlinginfrared thermography
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , November 2008 , pp. 387 - 393
Copyright
© 2008 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blessing, WW 2003 Lower brainstem pathways regulating sympathetically mediated changes in cutaneous blood flow. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 23: 527–538CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boissy, A, Manteuffel, G, Jensen, MB, Moe, RO, Spruijt, B, Keeling, LJ, Winckler, C, Forkman, B, Dimitrov, I, Langbein, J, Bakken, M, Veissier, I and Aubert, A 2007 Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology and Behavior 92: 375–397CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 1997 The influence of handling on the behaviour and productivity of lactating heifers. In: Hemsworth PH, Spinka M and Kostal L (eds) Proceedings of the 31st International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology pp 58-59. Prague, Czech RepublicGoogle Scholar
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 2003 The effect of positive or negative handling on the behavioural and physiological responses of non-lactating heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesterton, RN, Pfeiffer, DU, Morris, RS and Tanner, CM 1989 Environmental and behavioural factors affecting the prevalence of foot lameness in New Zealand dairy herds; a case-control study New Zealand Veterinary Journal 37: 135–142CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, NJ, Church, JS, Schaefer, AL, Webster, JR, Matthews, LR and Suttie, JM 2005 Stress and pain assessment of velvet antler removal from Elk (Cervus elaphus canadensis) and Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). Online Journal of Veterinary Research 9: 13–25Google Scholar
de Passillé, AMB, Rushen, J, Ladewig, J and Petherick, C 1996 Dairy calves’ discrimination of people based on previous handling. Journal of Animal Science 74: 969–974CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desire, L, Veissier, I, Despres, G, Delval, E, Toporenko, G and Boissy, A 2006 Appraisal process in sheep (Ovis aries): Interactive effect of suddenness and unfamiliarity on cardiac and behavioral responses. Journal of Comparative Psychology 120: 280–287CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, AD, Morris, CA and Matthews, LR 2000 Cattle behaviour: comparison of measures of temperament in beef cattle. In: Peterson SW (ed) Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production pp 214-217. Hamilton, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2001 Cattle vocalisations are associated with handling equipment problems at beef slaughter plants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 191–201CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 1998 Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals. CAB International: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH 2003 Human-animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH 2007 Ethical stockmanship. Australian Veterinary Journal 85: 194–200CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilgour, R 1975 The open-field test as an assessment of the temperament of dairy cows. Animal Behaviour 23: 615–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilgour, RJ, Melville, GJ and Greenwood, PL 2006 Individual differences in the reaction of beef cattle to situations involving social isolation, close proximity of humans, restraint and novelty. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99: 21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefcourt, AM, Kahl, S and Akers, RM 1986 Correlation of indices of stress with intensity of electrical shock for cows. Journal of Dairy Science 69: 833–842CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, JA, Pavlidis, I and Cooper, M 2001 The face of fear. The Lancet 357: 1757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCafferty, DJ 2007 The value of infrared thermography for research on mammals: Previous applications and future directions. Mammal Review 37: 207–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellor, DJ, Cook, CJ and Stafford, KJ 2000 Quantifying some responses to pain as a stressor. In: Moberg, GP and Mench, JA (eds) The Biology of Animal Stress: Basic Principles and Implications for Animal Welfare pp 171–198. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellor, DJ, Stafford, KJ, Todd, SE, Lowe, TE, Gregory, NG, Bruce, RA and Ward, RN 2002 A comparison of catecholamine and cortisol responses of young lambs and calves to painful husbandry procedures. Australian Veterinary Journal 80: 228–233CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, D 1977 Physical basis of thermoregulation. In: Robertshaw, D (ed) International Review of Physiology, Volume 15 Environmental Physiology II pp 1–27. University Park Press: Baltimore, USAGoogle Scholar
Nakayama, K, Goto, S, Kuraoka, K and Nakamura, K 2005 Decrease in nasal temperature of rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) in negative emotional state. Physiology and Behavior 84: 783–790CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pajor, EA, Rushen, J and de Passillé, AMB 2000 Aversion learning techniques to evaluate dairy cattle handling practices. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69: 89–102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pajor, EA, Rushen, J and de Passillé, AMB 2003 Dairy cattle's choice of handling treatments in a Y-maze. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80: 93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickenbacker, JE 1959 Handling Conditions and Practices Causing Bruises in Cattle Marketing Research Report 346. Farmer Cooperative Service, US Department of Agriculture: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Munksgaard, L, de Passillé, AMB, Jensen, MB and Thodberg, K 1998 Location of handling and dairy cows’ responses to people. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, de Passillé, AMB and Munksgaard, L 1999a Fear of people by cows and effects on milk yield, behavior, and heart rate at milking. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 720–727CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J, Taylor, AA and de Passillé, AMB 1999b Domestic animals fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J 2000 Some issues in the interpretation of behavioural responses to stress. In: Moberg, GP and Mench, JA (eds) The Biology of Animal Stress: Basic Principles and Implications for Animal Welfare pp 23–42. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, AL, Cook, NJ, Basarab, J, French, N, Colyn, JJ, Chabot, B, Holt-Klimec, L and Liu, T 2007 Early disease detection: implications for industry efficiency, food quality and safety. In: House J (ed) Proceedings of the Canadian Nutrition Congress pp 48. Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Stafford, KJ and Mellor, DJ 2005 Dehorning and disbudding distress and its alleviation in calves. Veterinary Journal 169: 337–349CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, M, Webster, JR, Schaefer, AL, Cook, NJ and Scott, SL 2005 Infrared thermography as a non-invasive tool to study animal welfare. Animal Welfare 14: 319–325Google Scholar
Stewart, M, Webster, JR, Verkerk, GA, Schaefer, AL, Colyn, JJ and Stafford, KJ 2007 Non-invasive measurement of stress in dairy cows using infrared thermography. Physiology and Behavior 92: 520–525CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, M, Stafford, KJ, Dowling, SK, Schaefer, AL and Webster, JR 2008 Eye temperature and heart rate variability of calves disbudded with or without local anaesthetic. Physiology and Behavior 93: 789–797CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vianna, DML and Carrive, P 2005 Changes in cutaneous and body temperature during and after conditioned fear to context in the rat. European Journal of Neuroscience 21: 2505–2512CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waynert, DF, Stookey, JM, Schwartzkopf-Genswein, KS, Watts, JM and Waltz, CS 1999 The response of beef cattle to noise during handling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62: 27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welp, T, Rushen, J, Kramer, DL, Festa-Bianchet, M and de Passillé, AMB 2004 Vigilance as a measure of fear in dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87: 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar