Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:15:35.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Links between specialization in the finishing of bulls, mixing, farmers' attitudes towards animals and the production of finishing bulls: a survey on French farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

L. Mounier ,
S. Colson ,
M. Roux ,
H. Dubroeucq ,
A. Boissy ,
S. Ingrand  and
I. Veissier
L. Mounier*
Affiliation:
ENVL, Unité de zootechnie, 69280 Marcy L'Etoile, France INRA, Unité de Recherche sur les Herbivores, Adaptation et Comportements sociaux, 63122 Saint Genes Champanelle, France
S. Colson
Affiliation:
AFSSA, Unité d'Epidémiologie et Bien-Être en Aviculture et Cuniculture, Zoopôle Beaucemaine, 22440 Ploufragan, France
M. Roux
Affiliation:
ENESAD, Département des Productions Animales, BP 87999, 21079, Dijon, Cedex, France
H. Dubroeucq
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité de Recherche sur les Herbivores, Adaptation et Comportements sociaux, 63122 Saint Genes Champanelle, France
A. Boissy
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité de Recherche sur les Herbivores, Adaptation et Comportements sociaux, 63122 Saint Genes Champanelle, France
S. Ingrand
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité Transformation des Systèmes d'Elevages, 63122 Saint Genes Champanelle, France
I. Veissier
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité de Recherche sur les Herbivores, Adaptation et Comportements sociaux, 63122 Saint Genes Champanelle, France
*
†Corresponding author: E-mail: l.mounier@vet-lyon.fr
Get access

Abstract

In France, beef bulls are finished by breeder-finishers who produce calves and then fatten them, or by specialized finishers who fatten bulls that they buy. According to previous results on both dairy cows and pigs, breeding on the farm promotes positive attitudes of farmers towards animals, which can lead to improved animal health and growth. The mixing of bulls on their arrival at a specialized unit could stress them and thus impair health and growth. We hypothesized that breeder-finishers have more positive attitudes towards bulls and their work with bulls than specialized finishers, and that positive attitudes lead to better production, whereas mixing may be counterproductive. We observed 1038 bulls (67 groups) finished by breeder-finishers or specialized finishers in mixed and unmixed groups. Using a questionnaire, we assessed farmers' beliefs about the sensitivities of bulls, their attitude towards contacts with bulls, their beliefs about successful factors in finishing, and job satisfaction. We recorded the number of clinical signs and weight gain of the bulls. Specialized finishers tended to have more negative contacts with bulls than breeder-finishers ( P=0·06). Poor health of bulls was associated with (i) a positive attitude towards gentle contacts with bulls ( P<0·01), (ii) job satisfaction ( P=0·01), and (iii) was negatively correlated to beliefs in bulls being difficult animals ( P=0·09). Fast growth of bulls was associated with job satisfaction ( P<0·01). Unmixed bulls grew faster than mixed bulls ( P=0·05). We conclude that in finishing bulls, it is production results that have an impact on attitudes, rather than the opposite: the need for close contacts with bulls resulting from health problems engenders more positive attitudes of farmers towards their animals, and good production results increase job satisfaction. Variations in production results between breeder-finishers and specialized finishers seem to lie more in the fact that the latter always use animals mixed at the beginning of the finishing period - with mixing impairing growth - than in the attitudes of farmers towards animals and their work.

Keywords

attitudesbull fatteninggrowthhealth
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 4 , August 2006 , pp. 561 - 568
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

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

Boe, K. E. and Faerevik, G. 2003. Grouping and social preferences in calves, heifers and cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80: 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuer, K., Hemsworth, P. H., Barnet, J. L., Matthews, L. R. and Coleman, G. J. 2000. Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 273–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coleman, G. J., Hemsworth, P. H. and Hay, M. 1998. Predicting stockperson behaviour towards pigs from attitudinal and job-related variables and empathy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deguchi, E. and Akuzawa, M. 1998. Effects of fighting after grouping on plasma cortisol concentration and lymphocyte blastogenesis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells induced by mitogens in piglets. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 60: 149–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dockes, A.-C. 2002. Les représentations de l'animal et du bien-être animal par les éleveurs et les intervenants en élevage. Acta, Point Recherche 15: 1–10.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S. 1993. The Psychology of attitudes. Hartcourt Brace College Publishers, USA.Google Scholar
Fazio, R. H. 1995. Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitudes accessibility. In Attitude strength: antecedents and consequences (ed. Petty, R. E. and Krosnick, J. A.), pp. 247–282. Erlbaum ed. Mahwah, Hillsdalle, NJ.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M. 1980. A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications. In Nebraska symposium on motivation, volume 27 (ed. Howe, H. E. Jr. and Page, M. M.), pp. 65–116. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Gonyou, H. W., Hemsworth, P. H. and Barnett, J. L. 1986. Effects of frequent interactions with humans on growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, N., Nishiwaki, A., Suguwara, K. and Ito, I. 1997. The effects of social exchange between two groups of lactating primiparous heifers on milk production, dominance order, behavior and adrenocortical response. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 51: 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H. and Barnett, J. L. 1991. The effects of aversively handling pigs, either individually or in groups, on their behaviour, growth and corticosteroids. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L. and Hansen, C. 1986. The influence of handling by humans on the behaviour, reproduction and corticosteroids of male and female pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H. and Coleman, G. J. 1998. Human-livestock interactions: the stockperson and the productivity and welfare of intensively farmed animals. CAB International, Oxon/New-York.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Coleman, G. J. and Barnett, J. L. 1994. Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 349–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Coleman, G. J., Barnett, J. L. and Borg, S. 2000. Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 78: 2821–2831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingvartsen, K. L. and Andersen, H. R. 1993. Space allowance and type of housing for growing cattle. A review of performance and possible relation to neuroendocrine function. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science 43: 65–80.Google Scholar
Lensink, J., Boissy, A. and Veissier, I. 2000. The relationship between farmers' attitude and behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Annales de Zootechnie: Animal Research 49: 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensink, J., Veissier, I. and Florand, L. 2001. The farmer's influence on calves' behaviour, health and production of a veal unit. Animal Science 72: 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mounier, L., Veissier, I. and Boissy, A. 2005. The pros and cons of mixing beef bulls at the beginning of fattening to form groups of homogeneous weight. Journal of Animal Science 83: 1696–1704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakanishi, Y., Kawamura, T., Goto, I. and Umetsu, R. 1993. Comparative aspects of behavioural activities of beef cows before and after introducing a stranger at night. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture. Kyushu University 37: 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raussi, S. 2003. Human-cattle interactions in group housing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80: 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J., Taylor, A. A. and De Passillé, A. M. 1999. Domestic animals' fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seabrook, M. F. 1972. A study to determine the influence of the herdman's personality on milk yield. Journal of Agriculture and Labour Science 1: 45–49.Google Scholar
Sevi, A., Taibi, L., Albenzio, M., Muscio, A., Dell'aquila, S. and Napolitano, F. 2001. Behavioral, adrenal, immune, and productive responses of lactating ewes to regrouping and relocation. Journal of Animal Science 79: 1457–1465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 2000. SAS version 8.1 SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S., Menke, C. and Coleman, G. J. 2002. The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willock, J., Deary, I. J., McGregor, M. J., Sutherland, A., Edwards-Jones, G., Morgan, O., Dent, J. B., Grieve, R., Gibson, G. J. and Austin, E. J. 1999. Farmers' attitudes, objectives, behaviours and personality traits: The Edinburgh study of decision making on farms. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 54: 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar