By Hurnik, J. F. and Lewis, N. J., Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1998
Description
Ease of handling (halter placement, leading, entering the squeeze, entering the headgate and exiting the squeeze) of 40 multiparous and 40 primiparous dairy cows, housed in tie stalls and milked in a herringbone parlour, was scored and analysed for effects related to recent (6 months) management procedures. The order of difficulty of these tests was exiting the squeeze, entering the headgate, halter placement, entering the squeeze and leading. The scores for these tests were 1.5, 1.5, 2.1, 2.3 and 2.8, respectively, on a 5-point scale, where 1 = easy to handle and 5 = difficult to handle. Four categories of ease of handling were distinguished; consistent ease (33%), predominant ease (1 adverse response) (40%), unpredictable (equal adverse and positive responses) (25%), and consistent difficulty (1%). Although the ease of handling was relatively good in this herd, 24% of the cows were difficult to handle in >1 test. Ease of handling while being led was correlated with the score for squeeze entry (r=0.23) and entering the squeeze and entering the headgate were also correlated (r=0.47). Correlations between these variables were presumed to be related to previous hoof trimming in the squeeze. Aversive experiences and inexperience in a squeeze were shown to negatively impact on the subsequent ease with which a cow could be led to the squeeze and confined in the headgate. However, squeeze experience was the only variable in which significant correlations were apparent. It is concluded that aversive management procedures, applied only when necessary, and therefore on a random basis, did not appear to adversely affect the ease of handling of dairy cows in the squeeze or in the milking parlour
Ease of handling (halter placement, leading, entering the squeeze, entering the headgate and exiting the squeeze) of 40 multiparous and 40 primiparous dairy cows, housed in tie stalls and milked in a herringbone parlour, was scored and analysed for effects related to recent (6 months) management procedures. The order of difficulty of these tests was exiting the squeeze, entering the headgate, halter placement, entering the squeeze and leading. The scores for these tests were 1.5, 1.5, 2.1, 2.3 and 2.8, respectively, on a 5-point scale, where 1 = easy to handle and 5 = difficult to handle. Four categories of ease of handling were distinguished; consistent ease (33%), predominant ease (1 adverse response) (40%), unpredictable (equal adverse and positive responses) (25%), and consistent difficulty (1%). Although the ease of handling was relatively good in this herd, 24% of the cows were difficult to handle in >1 test. Ease of handling while being led was correlated with the score for squeeze entry (r=0.23) and entering the squeeze and entering the headgate were also correlated (r=0.47). Correlations between these variables were presumed to be related to previous hoof trimming in the squeeze. Aversive experiences and inexperience in a squeeze were shown to negatively impact on the subsequent ease with which a cow could be led to the squeeze and confined in the headgate. However, squeeze experience was the only variable in which significant correlations were apparent. It is concluded that aversive management procedures, applied only when necessary, and therefore on a random basis, did not appear to adversely affect the ease of handling of dairy cows in the squeeze or in the milking parlour
We welcome and encourage discussion of our linked research papers. Registered users can post their comments here. New users' comments are moderated, so please allow a while for them to be published.