Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:33:03.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spatial distance and reactivity traits alter the positive perception of brushing by ewes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2019

P. R. Tamioso Open the ORCID record for P. R. Tamioso [Opens in a new window] ,
A. Boissy ,
X. Boivin ,
H. Chandèze ,
S. Andanson ,
É. Delval ,
C. A. Taconeli ,
D. Hazard  and
C. F. M. Molento
P. R. Tamioso
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Animal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Setor de Ciências Agrárias, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, Cabral, 80035-060, Curitiba-Parana, Brazil
A. Boissy
Affiliation:
UMR1213 Herbivores, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique – INRA Theix, F-63122, Saint-Genès Champanelle, France
X. Boivin
Affiliation:
UMR1213 Herbivores, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique – INRA Theix, F-63122, Saint-Genès Champanelle, France
H. Chandèze
Affiliation:
UMR1213 Herbivores, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique – INRA Theix, F-63122, Saint-Genès Champanelle, France
S. Andanson
Affiliation:
UMR1213 Herbivores, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique – INRA Theix, F-63122, Saint-Genès Champanelle, France
É. Delval
Affiliation:
UMR1213 Herbivores, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique – INRA Theix, F-63122, Saint-Genès Champanelle, France
C. A. Taconeli
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Federal University of Paraná, Centro Politécnico, Avenida Coronel Francisco Heráclito dos Santos, 100, Jardim das Américas, 81530-000, Curitiba-Parana, Brazil
D. Hazard
Affiliation:
UMR1388 GenPhySE, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique-INRA, 24 Chemin de Borde Rouge – Auzeville, F-31326, Castanet-Tolosan Cedex, France
C. F. M. Molento*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Animal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Setor de Ciências Agrárias, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, Cabral, 80035-060, Curitiba-Parana, Brazil
*
†E-mail: carlamolento@ufpr.br
Get access

Abstract

Gentle handling seems to elicit positive states in sheep. The study investigated whether spatial distance alters sheep responses to brushing and whether spatial distance is influenced by reactivity. Twenty Romane ewes were assessed in three sessions: in Sessions 1 and 3, one grid separated the test animal from pen mates, with no distance between them, and in Session 2 two grids separated the test animal from pen mates by a distance of about 1.7 m. Ewes had been genetically selected for low (R−) or high (R+) behavioural reactivity to social isolation. Body postures, head orientation, ear postures, closed and half-closed eyes, tail wagging and feeding behaviour, in addition to heart rate (HR) and HR variability, as the root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD), standard deviation of all normal-to-normal (NN) intervals (SDNN), RMSSD/SDNN ratio and ratio between low-frequency (LF) and high-frequency (HF) powers (LF/HF) were assessed. Data were analysed using generalized linear models and linear mixed models. Session, genetic line and phase (pre-, brushing and post-brushing) were considered fixed effects. Increased distance in Session 2 might not have influenced ewes’ responses. Fewer changes in ear postures were noted in Session 3 than 1 (P<0.01), suggesting that ewes were more relaxed in Session 3. The RMSSD/SDNN ratio was higher mainly during brushing in Sessions 1 and 3 (P<0.05), indicating that ewes were more relaxed during brushing, and at no distance between pen mates. However, spatial distance influenced R− and R+ ewes’ responses; R+ ewes performed more asymmetric ear postures in Session 2 than 1 and 3 (P<0.01), and in Session 3 than 1 (P<0.01), indicating that spatial distance had a negative effect on R+ ewes. Low reactive ewes spent less time on horizontal ear postures in Session 2 than 1 and 3 (P<0.01), and R+ ewes spent more time on horizontal postures in Session 1 than 3 (P<0.01). Curiously, R− ewes spent more time eating and ruminating in Session 3 than 1 (P<0.01), and in Session 2 than 1 and 3 (P<0.01), whereas R+ ewes ate and ruminated more in Session 1 than 3 (P<0.05). Higher HR was found among R− ewes in Session 2 than 1 and 3, and in Session 3 than 1 (P<0.01). High reactive ewes showed higher HR in Session 1 than 3 (P<0.01). The findings suggest that the social context might influence sheep responses to gentle handling, and the effects depend on their reactivity traits.

Keywords

autonomic nervous systembehaviouremotional reactivitypositive handlingsheep
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 150 - 160
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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

Anderson, C, Yngvesson, J, Boissy, A, Uvnäs-Moberg, K and Lidfors, L 2015. Behavioural expression of positive anticipation for food or opportunity to play in lambs. Behavioural Processes 113, 152–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertenshaw, CE and Rowlinson, P 2008. Exploring heifers’ perception of’ positive treatment through their motivation to pursue a retreated human. Animal Welfare 17, 313–319.Google Scholar
Boissy, A, Aubert, A, Désiré, L, Greiveldinger, L, Delval, E and Veissier, I 2011. Cognitive sciences to relate ear postures to emotions in sheep. Animal Welfare 20, 47–56.Google Scholar
Boissy, B 1995. Fear and fearfulness in animals. The Quarterly Review of Biology 70, 165–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulon, M, Nowak, R, Peyrat, J, Chandèze, H, Boissy, A and Boivin, X 2015. Do lambs perceive regular human stroking as pleasant? Behaviour and heart rate variability analyses. PLoS ONE 10, e0118617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gygax, L, Reefmann, N, Wolf, M and Langbein, J 2013. Prefrontal cortex activity, sympatho-vagal reaction and behaviour distinguish between situations of feed reward and frustration in dwarf goats. Behavioural Brain Research 239, 104–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, RB 1996. Fear and adaptability in poultry: insights, implications and imperatives. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 52, 131–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koseki, T, Mouri, A, Mamiya, T, Aoyama, Y, Toriumi, K, Suzuki, S, Nakajima, A, Yamada, T, Nagai, T and Nabeshima, T 2012. Exposure to enriched environments during adolescence prevents abnormal behaviours associated with histone deacetylation in phencyclidine-treated mice. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 15, 1489–1501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambert, HS and Carder, G 2017. Looking into the eyes of a cow: can eye whites be used as a measure of emotional state? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 186, 1–6.Google Scholar
Lanier, JL, Grandin, T, Green, RD, Avery, D and McGee, K 2000. The relationship between reaction to sudden, intermittent movements and sounds and temperament. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1467–1474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manteca, X and Deag, JM 1993. Use of physiological measures to assess individual differences in reactivity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37, 265–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, RO, Bakken, M, Kittilsen, S, Kingsley-Smith, H and Spruijt, BM 2006. A note on reward-related behaviour and emotional expressions in farmed silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes) – basis for a novel tool to study animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 362–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, E, Langbein, J and Nurnberg, G 2002. Heart rate variability: a noninvasive approach to measure stress in calves and cows. Physiology & Behaviour 75, 251–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Development Core Team 2015. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Reefmann, N, Butikofer Kaszàs, F, Wechsler, B and Gygax, L 2009. Ear and tail postures as indicators of emotional valence in sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118, 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, V, Belzung, C, Delarue, C and Chapillon, P 2001. Environmental enrichment in BALB/c mice: effects in classical tests of anxiety and exposure to a predatory odor. Physiology & Behaviour 74, 313–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandem, AI, Braastad, BO and Bakken, M 2006. Behaviour and percentage eye-white in cows waiting to be fed concentrate– a brief report. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 97, 145–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmied, C, Boivin, X and Waiblinger, S 2008. Stroking different body regions of dairy cows: effects on avoidance and approach behaviour toward humans. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 596–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamioso, PR, Molento, CFM, Boivin, X, Chandèze, H, Andanson, S, Delval, É, Hazard, D, Silva, GP, Taconeli, CA and Boissy, A 2018. Inducing positive emotions: behavioural and cardiac responses to human and brushing in ewes selected for low vs high social reactivity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 208, 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamioso, PR, Rucinque, DS, Taconeli, CA, Silva, GP and Molento, CFM 2017. Behaviour and body surface temperature as welfare indicators in selected sheep regularly brushed by a familiar observer. Journal of Veterinary Behaviour 19, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valance, D, Després, G, Boissy, A, Mignon-Grasteau, S, Constantin, P and Leterrier, C 2007. Genetic selection on a behavioural fear trait is associated with changes in heart rate variability in quail. Genes, Brain and Behaviour 6, 339–346.Google ScholarPubMed
Veissier, I, Boissy, A, Désiré, L and Greiveldinger, L 2009. Animals’ emotions: studies in sheep using appraisal theories. Animal Welfare 18, 347–354.Google Scholar
Vögeli, S, Wolf, M, Wechsler, B and Gygax, L 2015. Housing conditions influence cortical and behavioural reactions of sheep in response to videos showing social interactions of different valence. Behavioural Brain Research 284, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C, Korff, J and Bucker, A 2004. Previous handling and gentle interactions affect behaviour and heart rate of dairy cows during a veterinary procedure. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerath, HS, Gygax, L, Hillmann, E 2014. Are special feed and being brushed judged as positive by calves?. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 156, 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebunke, M, Puppe, B and Langbein, J 2013. Effects of cognitive enrichment on behavioural and physiological reactions of pigs. Physiology & Behaviour 118, 70–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed