Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:25:51.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The farmers’ influence on calves’ behaviour, health and production of a veal unit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

B. J. Lensink ,
I. Veissier  and
L. Florand
B. J. Lensink
Affiliation:
INRA, Centre de Clermont-Ferrand-Theix, Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, 63122 Saint-Genès Champanelle, France
I. Veissier
Affiliation:
INRA, Centre de Clermont-Ferrand-Theix, Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, 63122 Saint-Genès Champanelle, France
L. Florand
Affiliation:
Tendriade Elevage SA, 44145 Chateaubriant, France
Get access

Abstract

Although veal production is a highly standardized system, there still remains considerable variability in productivity between units. This variability might be due to the farmers working on these units, through differences in stockmanship, work attitudes or behaviour, which in turn may affect animals’ fear responses, productivity and health. A survey was conducted on 50 commercial farms affiliated to the same veal company. All units had calves housed in individual crates, a similar number of crates, and the same diets and management advice. Data were collected on: building and general farm characteristics, farmers’ backgrounds and their attitudes towards their work and calves, farmers’ behaviour with the calves, calves’ reactivity to people, and disease level of the calves. Productivity results (growth rates, food efficiency and mortality) were used to classify veal units as ‘high producing’ (no. = 24) v. ‘moderate producing’ (no. = 26). Calves were less reactive to people in units where the farmer behaved sympathetically and where there were several stockpersons working. The disease level was lower in units where the farmer had a positive attitude towards the sensitivity of the calves to contact and towards the importance of cleaning. Productivity of the veal unit was associated with the health of the calves but not with their reactivity to people.

It is suggested that the farmer can have an influence on the success of the veal unit mainly through his/her ability to control the health of the calves and that a positive attitude towards animals and towards work (specifically cleaning actions) can improve the accuracy of surveillance and care of the animals. Moreover, through his/her behaviour with the calves and his/her ability to control their health, the farmer can play an important rôle in assuring calves’ welfare.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourhealthproductionveal calves
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 105 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

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

Barnett, J. L., Hemsworth, P. H. and Newman, E. A. 1992. Fear of humans and its relationships with productivity in laying hens at commercial farms. British Poultry Science 33: 699–710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boivin, X., Le Neindre, P., Chupin, J. M., Garel, J. P. and Trillat, G. 1992. Influence of breed and early management on ease of handling and open-field behaviour of cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science1 32: 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
English, P. R. 1991. Stockmanship, empathy and pig behaviour. Pig Veterinary Journal 26: 56–66.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
Gross, W. B. and Siegel, P. B. 1979a. Adaptation of chickens to their handlers and experimental results. Avian Diseases 23: 708–714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, W. B. and Siegel, P. B. 1979b. Effects of early environmental stresses on chicken body weight, antibody response to RBC antigens, feed efficiency and response to handling. Avian Diseases 24: 569–579.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., Coleman, G. J. and Hansen, C. 1989. A study of the relationships between the attitudinal and behavioural profiles of stockpeople and the level of fear of humans and the reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Brand, A. and Willems, P. 1981. The behavioural response of sows to the presence of human beings and its relation to productivity. Livestock Production Science 8: 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H. and Coleman, G. J. 1998. A model of stockperson-animal interactions and their implications for animals. In Human-livestock interactions: the stockperson and the productivity and welfare of intensively farmed animals (ed. Hemsworth, P. H. and Coleman, G. J.), pp. 91–106. CAB International, New York.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Coleman, G. J. and Barnett, J. L. 1994a. Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpeople towards the 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., Cox, M. and Barnett, J. L. 1994b. Stimulus generalisation, the inability of pigs to discriminate between humans on the basis of their previous handling experience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40: 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. B. 1993. Reduction of the domestic chick’s fear of humans by regular handling and related treatments. Animal Behavior 46: 991–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensink, B. J., Boissy, A. and Veissier, I. 2000a. The relationship between attitude and behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Annales de Zootechnie 49: 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensink, B. J., Boivin, X., Pradel, P., Le Neindre, P. and Veissier, I. 2000b. Reducing veal calves’ reactivity to people by providing additional human contact. Journal of Animal Science 78: 1213–1218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lensink, B. J., Fernandez, X., Boivin, X., Pradel, P., Le Neindre, P. and Veissier, I. 2000c. The impact of gentle contacts on ease of handling, welfare, and growth of calves, and quality of veal meat. Journal of Animal Science 78: 1219–1226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perez, E., Noordhuizen, J. P. T. M., Wuijkhuise, L. A. van. and Stassen, E. N. 1990. Management factors related to calf mortality and mortality rates. Livestock Production Science 25: 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S. and Castellan, N. 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. International Editions, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Singapore.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1989. SAS/STAT©1 user’s guide (release 6·03). Statistcial Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Stull, C. L. and McDonough, S. P. 1994. Multidisciplinary approach to evaluating welfare of veal calves in commercial facilities. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2518–2524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ter Wee, E., Wierenga, H. K., Jorna, I. P., and Smits, A. C. 1991. Health of veal calves in 4 systems of individual housing during the first weeks of fattening period. In New trends in veal calf production. Proceedings of the international symposium on veal calf production (ed. Metz, J. H. M. and Groenestein, C. M.), EAAP publication no. 52, pp. 81–84. Pudoc Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Toullec, R. 1988. Alimentation du veau de boucherie. In Alimentation des bovins, ovins, caprins (ed. Jarrige, R.), pp. 185–197. INRA Publications, Paris.Google Scholar