This article was downloaded by: [Dr Kenneth Shapiro]

On: 08 June 2015, At: 08:28

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Journal of Applied Animal

Welfare Science
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/haaw20

Handling, Electric Goad, and

Head Restraint: Effects on
Calves' Behavior
Laksiri A. Goonewardene , Mick A. Price , Joseph M.
Stookey , Phyllis A. Day & Gary Minchau
Published online: 04 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Laksiri A. Goonewardene , Mick A. Price , Joseph M. Stookey ,

Phyllis A. Day & Gary Minchau (2000) Handling, Electric Goad, and Head Restraint:
Effects on Calves' Behavior, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 3:1, 5-22, DOI:
10.1207/S15327604JAWS0301_2

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0301_2

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015
 JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE, 3(1), 5–22
Copyright © 2000, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Handling, Electric Goad, and Head

Restraint: Effects on Calves’ Behavior
Laksiri A. Goonewardene
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

Animal Industry Division

Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development

Mick A. Price
Department of Agricultural, Food, and Nutritional Science
University of Alberta

Joseph M. Stookey
Department of Herd Medicine and Theriogenology
University of Saskatchewan

Phyllis A. Day
Animal Industry Division
Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development

Gary Minchau
Department of Agricultural, Food, and Nutritional Science
University of Alberta

Ninety-six weaned calves (48 bulls and 48 heifers) were allocated in a 2 × 2 × 2 ar-
rangement to 3 treatments each with 2 levels: calves handled every 10 days or 20 days;
an electric goad used or not used; and head gate restrained or not restrained. Behavior
responses were measured by 5 incremental progressive force requirement (PFR) cate-
gories and transit time (TT). The PFRs were transformed to maximum force scores
(MFS) for analysis (Snell, 1964). TT was the time taken for calves to move 11 m along

Requests for reprints should be sent to Laksiri A. Goonewardene, Animal Industry Division, Alberta
Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6H 5T6. E-mail:
laki.goonewardene@agric.gov.ab.ca
 6 GOONEWARDENE ET AL.

a chute. During the study, 52%, 36%, 5%, 3%, and 5% of the cattle were observed in
Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Cattle handled every 10 days showed a
36.0% higher MFS (p < .03) and a 24.5% higher TT (p < .02) than cattle handled every
20 days. The MFS and TT for head gate–restrained calves were 33.0% (p < .03) and
15.5% higher (p < .02), respectively, compared to calves not restrained in the head
gate. Cattle developed a reluctance to frequent handling early in the study and an aver-
sion to head gate restraint midway. The aversion was pronounced when calves were
handled frequently and head gate restrained simultaneously. Handling, goad, and
head gate restraint had no effect (p > .05) on weight gain. The aversion to the head gate
was more pronounced in bulls than in heifers. Cattle habituated well to frequent han-
dling, but when combined with a head hold they became more difficult to handle.
Management practices such as restraining cattle in the head gate should be done infre-
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

quently, thereby improving the welfare of calves.

The welfare consequences of a number of common cattle handling sequences are not
known. Livestock readily learn to differentiate between aversive and benign forms
of restraint (Grandin, 1993a). Cattle who experience strong negative stimuli such as
electro-immobilization show avoidance behaviors for long periods of time com-
pared to those who have milder experiences such as being weighed or injected
(Grandin, 1993a; Grandin, Odde, Schutz, & Behrns, 1994). Previous experiences,
genetic factors, and the degree of pain also affect aversion behaviors (Hutson, 1980;
Fordyce, Dodt, & Wythes, 1988; Grandin, 1993a). Although gender differences ex-
ist in the ease of handling nonhuman animals (Hinch & Lynch, 1987; Warriss, 1990),
the establishment of human–animal relationships and prolonged contact with hu-
mans have been shown to make it easier to handle cattle (Boissey & Bouissou, 1988;
Boivin, LeNeindre, Garel, & Chupin, 1994).
Cattle used in research are weighed and handled more frequently than commer-
cial cattle. Stubborn or fearful cattle that hesitate to move may be persuaded vo-
cally, physically, and sometimes with an electric goad. The goad (prod) is deemed
to be both painful and stressful to cattle (J. Stookey, personal communication,
October, 1996). Research cattle sometimes are restrained repeatedly in head gates
for processing, including blood collection. These repeated practices may compro-
mise welfare, and cattle could develop behavior patterns such as aversion or toler-
ance to these stimuli. This study was designed to evaluate the behavior and growth
responses of bull and heifer calves that were frequently handled, subjected to an
electric cattle goad, and restrained in the head gate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted according to the Canadian Council of Animal Care
(1993) protocols at the University of Alberta Kinsella Research Station over 80
days. A total of 96 weaned calves—48 bulls and 48 heifers from two hybrid
 EFFECTS ON CALVES’ BEHAVIOR 7

lines, 48 Beef Synthetic and 48 Dairy Synthetic (Berg, Makarechian, & Arthur,
1990), with an average body weight of 312 ± 74 kg and an age of 190 ± 18
days—were allocated by breed and sex to one of three treatments in a 2 × 2 × 2
factorial arrangement. The treatments were

1. Handling frequency (HF) with two levels: handled every 10 days (HF = 10,
n = 48) or handled every 20 days (HF = 20, n = 48).
2. Use of an electric goad (EG; PL Pulsar Hot Shot, Hot Shot Products Co.,
Inc., Minneapolis, MN) with two levels: electric goad used (EG+, n = 48) or
electric goad not used (EG–, n = 48).
3. Head gate restrained (HR), with two levels: restrained (HR+, n = 48) or not
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

restrained (HR–, n = 48).

The head gate (Diamond R Livestock Equipment Co., Hermiston, OR) was con-
structed of hollow steel without padding, hinged at the bottom, and operated by
a hydraulic system (Figure 1). The head opening of the gate in the closed posi-
tion was 18 cm at the widest point.
The calves at Kinsella are born outdoors during April and May, at which time
their birth weights are recorded. In July, they are vaccinated for blackleg and
weighed again. In October, they are weaned (approximately 150 days) and weighed,
and the males are placed in the feedlot. Feeder-slaughter cattle are weighed monthly
from October to April or May. When they attain a level of finish, they are sent for
slaughter. Typical Kinsella cattle are accustomed to being handled. The calves in

FIGURE 1 Photograph of head gate.

 8 GOONEWARDENE ET AL.

this study were housed in four 34 m × 48 m outdoor pens that had straw mounds,
fence line feeders, windbreaks, and straw bedding. Bulls and heifers were penned
(four pens, each with 24 animals) separately, according to how frequently they were
to be handled (10 days and 20 days) and were fed daily. The cattle were checked for
diseases and abnormal behaviors at feeding time each day. Bull calves were fed a diet
containing 63.8% rolled barley, 21.2% rolled oats, 10.0% sun-cured alfalfa pellets
(18.0% crude protein), and 5.0% of a protein supplement (72.2% canola meal,
12.9% limestone, 6.5% phosphorus [as biophos], 3.2% salt, 2.5% barley grain, 2.1%
molasses, and 0.65% Vitamins A, D, and E). Heifer calves were fed a hay containing
brome (Bromis inermis), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), and creeping red fescue (Festu-
ca rubra) free choice and provided with a mineralized salt.
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

The configuration of the handling facility is shown in Figure 2. In groups of 12,

calves were walked quietly from their pens a distance of approximately 400 m into
a holding area and held behind gates in the chute. Gates 1 and 2 were then opened
(Figure 2), and one animal was allowed into the chute to begin forward movement
into the alley leading to the weigh scale, a distance of 13 m from Gate 1. After the
weighing, operators opened Gate 3 at the front of the weigh scale and Gate 4 at the
back of the squeeze. Timing with a stopwatch began with the forward movement
of the animal into Chute 2 and was stopped when the entire animal was inside the
squeeze, which had hydraulically operated sides and a head gate stanchion. All
gates were closed immediately after each animal entered the next area in forward
movement. Gates were solid so that calves could not see what was happening to
their groupmates. The entire chute from the holding area to the exit door was lo-
cated inside a heated building with a 220-cm high plywood ceiling.
Ease of cattle movement was recorded in two ways:

1. Progressive force requirement (PFR), the stimulus required to move the cat-
tle forward in Chute 2, where Category 1 = no stimulus or force applied if the animal
did not move for 10 sec; Category 2 = voice and back slap at 1 sec intervals for 10

FIGURE 2 Handling facility configuration.

 EFFECTS ON CALVES’ BEHAVIOR 9

sec; Category 3 = voice and 1 in. Polyvinyl chloride tube slap for 10 sec; Category 4
= tail twist; and Category 5 = whatever reasonable force was necessary to move the
animal into the squeeze (J. Stookey, personal communication, October, 1996).
2. Transit time (TT), the time taken in seconds for an animal to move the length
(11 m) of Chute 2 (Figure 2).

Once in the squeeze, EG+ and HR+ animals were subjected to the relevant
treatments or combinations. Reasonable force was a combination of the PFR cate-
gories. The electric goad was applied once (< 1 sec) over the left bicep femoris
muscle of the animal in the squeeze, and HR+ animals were held in the head gate
for 10 sec. Cattle not restrained in the head gate were held on the platform for 10
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

sec and released. At no time were the side panels of the squeeze used to restrain the
calves. On Day 80, the last day of the study, all calves, regardless of their treatment
group, were head gate restrained. Five ml of blood were collected by jugular vein
puncture into sterile Vaccutainer® tubes for serum cortisol (CORT) analysis.
CORT was determined on all samples in a single run radioimmunoassay
(Coat-A-Count® Kit-Diagnostic Products Corporation, Los Angeles, CA). The as-
say was internally calibrated using human serum–based standards with CORT val-
ues ranging from 1–50 ug/dl (27.6–1380 nmol/l). A standard bovine plasma pool,
routinely extracted and assayed over the increasing range of dilutions, showed no
significant lack of parallelism to the standard curve. The same operators worked the
cattle at the different stations throughout the trial. Five nonexperimental animals
were put through the handling facility before and after each evaluation to remove the
influence of being among the first and last animals through the chute. This evalua-
tion (experimental) procedure was repeated on nine occasions for those calves that
passed through the handling facility every 10 days and on five occasions for those
that were handled every 20 days. Using a sound level meter, Type 2205 (Bruel &
Kjaer, DK-2850, Naerum, Denmark), the background noise level and the head gate
closure noise were recorded on one occasion after the study when 23 animals came
through the chute and were restrained in the head gate.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The PFR data were transformed into five Snell scores (Snell, 1964) where the Cate-
gories 1–5 represented maximum force scores (MFS) of 0, 42, 65, 76, and 100, re-
spectively, which were then analyzed as a continuous variable. The Snell transfor-
mation converts categorical data to scores and provides homogenous residual
variances over the subclasses and approximately normally distributed residual devi-
ations. Average daily gains (ADG) were determined at 10- and 20-day intervals for
all animals. The dependent variables, MFS, TT, ADG, and body weight were ana-
lyzed as a split-plot in time (repeated measures) using the General Linear Model
(GLM) of the Statistical Analysis System Institute, Inc. (SAS; 1990) with HF, EG,
 10 GOONEWARDENE ET AL.

HR, and sex as main effects. The interactions of these effects were also assessed. The
MFS and TT were measured over 5 periods and ADG over 4 periods (time). The pe-
riod effect was considered the within-subject effect in the split-plot analysis of vari-
ance. Cortisol levels were analyzed as a factorial with HF, EG, HR, sex, and interac-
tion effects (SAS, 1990). Linear and quadratic relations were determined for MFS
and TT in the EG and HR treatments within each HF level (10-day and 20-day) for
bulls and heifers separately, using the GLM procedure (SAS, 1990). The breed
group effect was initially tested for differences in MFS and TT. Because it was not
significant (p > .05), it was excluded from the model.

RESULTS
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

During the study, three Dairy Synthetic bull calves died of causes unrelated to
the experiment, and so 93 cattle completed the trial. Cattle who were handled at
10-day intervals were evaluated on nine occasions. Those handled at 20-day in-
tervals were evaluated on five. Of the 93 animals that completed the study, 30
were classified at least once in the two PFR Categories 4 and 5 (31.3%). Of
these animals, 20 were classified once, 7 were classified three times, and 2 were
classified four times in Categories 4 or 5. Using the repeatability of being classi-
fied in the extreme Categories 4 and 5 as a measure of the degree of handling
difficulty, 10 animals in this study could be classified as being difficult to han-
dle. In the HF10 treatment, 7 calves were repeatedly classified in Categories 4
and 5. The same animals were head gate restrained as well.
Figure 3 shows the number of times the calves were observed to be in each PFR
category for the eight treatment combinations. As all animals were subjected to
their respective treatment combinations on at least five occasions (0, 20, 40, 60,
and 80 days), the number of times the animals were observed in each PFR category
was 465. In general, animals subjected to the HF10 EG+ HR+ treatment combina-
tion were observed 16 times in PFR Categories 3, 4, and 5 compared to none in the
HF20 EG– HR–, which were considered the mildest treatment. On 27 occasions,
head gate restrained animals in the HF10 group were observed in PFR Categories
3, 4, and 5. Animals not restrained in the head gate were observed in the same cate-
gories on only 12 occasions. However, in the HF20 group equal numbers (10) were
observed in Categories 3, 4, and 5 in the HR + and HR– groups. More observations
(cattle) were represented in PFR Categories 1 and 2 (87.3%) than in the other cate-
gories. During the study, 52, 36, 5, 3, and 5% of the observations were in the PFR
Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively.
The effects of handling, use of the goad, and head gate restraint on MFS, TT,
ADG, and body weight over all periods are shown in Table 1. The effects of HF, PR,
HR, and sex on MFS and TT within each period are shown in Table 2. Overall MFS
and TT were significantly (p < .02) affected by HF and HR (Table 1). Cattle who
were handled at 10-day intervals showed a 36.0% higher MFS and a 24.5% higher
 Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

FIGURE 3 Number of times the calves were observed in each progressive force requirement category for the treatment combinations. HF = handling
frequency; 10 = 10-day interval; 20 = 20-day interval; EG = electric goad; + = used; – = not used; and HR = head restraint.

11
 TABLE 1
Effect of Handling Frequency, Electric Goad, and Head Restraint on Maximum Force
Score, Transit Time, Gain, and Weight in Bull and Heifer Calves

Maximum Average Daily

Force Score Transit Time Gain Body Weight Cortisola

Effect Levels % Fb sec F kg/d F kg F nmol/ L F

HF 10-day 29.4a 5.4 18.8a 7.6 1.21 0.11 369.6 0.32 53.6a 12.5
20-day 21.6b 15.1b 1.23 363.8 77.4b
Goad + 28.0 2.1 18.3 2.8 1.22 0.01 370.2 0.88 66.9 0.17
– 23.1 16.4 1.22 362.4 64.1
HR + 29.1a 4.8 18.6a 5.3 1.24 0.78 367.4 0.26 66.4 0.08
– 21.9b 16.1b 1.20 365.0 64.6
Sex Bulls 26.0 0.10 17.4 0.27 1.85a 590.5 455.9a 533.2 35.7a 78.7
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

Heifers 25.0 17.3 0.59b 276.6b 95.3b

SEMc 2.4 0.75 0.04 5.3 4.7

Note. HF = handling frequency; HR = head restraint; SEM = standard error of mean. Means with
different letters (a or b) in each effect are significant, p < .05.
aCortisol assayed at 80 days. bF value for each main effect. cPooled standard error of the mean.

TABLE 2
Effect of Handling Frequency, Goad, and Head Restraint on Maximum
Force Score and Transit Time Within Period in Bull and Heifer Calves

Maximum Force Score (%) Transit Time (sec)

Day Day Day Day Day Day Day Day Day Day
Effect Levels Fa 1 20 40 60 80 F 1 20 40 60 80

HF 10-day 2.64 36.4a 28.7a 29.8a 28.9 23.3 2.54 20.2a 18.1a 19.5a 18.5 17.9
20-day 22.1b 14.9b 16.6b 29.3 25.2 15.6b 13.7b 14.6b 17.8 17.6
Goad + 0.92 30.9 25.1 24.6 28.8 30.3a 1.11 18.5 16.7 17.7 18.1 20.2
– 27.5 18.5 21.8 29.4 18.1b 17.2 15.0 16.3 18.2 18.5
HR + 3.87 25.6 25.5 32.8a 35.6a 26.3 3.89 16.4 16.8 20.5a 18.9 19.3
– 32.8 18.1 13.6b 22.6b 22.2 19.3 14.9 13.6b 16.1 16.5
Sex Bulls 1.60 28.4 23.6 26.4 32.1 26.3 1.57 17.6 16.5 18.0 18.8 15.9
Heifers 30.0 19.9 19.9 26.2 22.2 18.1 15.2 16.0 17.5 18.5
SEMb 3.8 3.9 4.1 3.8 4.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

Note. HF = handling frequency; HR = head restraint; SEM = standard error of mean. Means with
different letters (a or b) within each effect are significant, p < .05.
aF value for the interaction of handling frequency, goad, head restraint, and sex with period (Day 1 to

Day 80). bPooled standard error of the mean.

TT than cattle handled at 20-day intervals. The MFS for cattle in the HR+ treatment
was 33.0% higher (p < .03) than HR– and 15.5% higher (p < .02) for TT. Cattle devel-
oped an overall aversion to being handled more frequently and restrained in the head
gate. The negative response to frequent handling was pronounced during the earlier
periods (≤ 40 days), and the aversion to the head gate was more pronounced in the
latter stages (≥ 40 days) of the study (Table 2). The overall MFS and TT were similar

12
 EFFECTS ON CALVES’ BEHAVIOR 13

for cattle receiving and not receiving the goad (p > .05). Overall ADG was not af-
fected by the HF, EG, and HR treatments (p > .05), and bulls had greater (p < .01)
gains than heifers (Table 1). The interaction between HF and HR was significant for
MFS (p < .04) and TT (p < .02). The difference in MFS between HR+ and HR– in the
HF10 group was 64.0% while the difference between HR+ and HR– in HF20 was
1.3% (Figure 4). Similarly, the difference in TT between cattle in HR+ and HR– in
the HF10 group was 31.7%, whereas it was only 1.3% between HR+ and HR– in the
HF20 treatment (Figure 5). Bulls who were head gate restrained showed a 33.0%
higher MFS (p < .03) and a 12.0% higher TT (p < .05) compared to head gate–re-
strained heifers. Bulls who were not head gate restrained showed a 24.0% lower
MFS and an 11.4% lower TT compared to nonrestrained heifers (Figures 6 & 7). The
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

interaction between handling frequency and period was significant (p < .03) for MFS
(Figure 8), suggesting that the animals handled every 10 days became habituated to
being frequently handled as the MFS decreased over time. Among the animals han-
dled at 20-day intervals, the MFS decreased up to 40 days but increased thereafter.
The interaction between HR and period was significant (p < .01) for MFS and TT
(Figure 9). The MFS and TT of cattle who were restrained in the head gate increased

FIGURE 4 Interaction between handling frequency and head restraint for maximum force
score.
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

FIGURE 5 Interaction between handling frequency and head restraint for transit time.

FIGURE 6 Interaction between head restraint and sex for maximum force score.

14
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

FIGURE 7 Interaction between head restraint and sex for transit time.

FIGURE 8 Interaction between handling frequency and period for maximum force score.
HF10-d = handling frequency, 10-day interval; HF20-d = handling frequency, 20-day interval.

15
 16 GOONEWARDENE ET AL.
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

FIGURE 9 Interaction between head restraint and period for maximum force score (MFS) and
transit time (TT).

over time up to 60 days, whereas the MFS and TT either remained the same or de-
creased over time in the cattle that were not head gate restrained.
The interaction of Handling Frequency × Head Restraint × Period was signifi-
cant (p < .01) for MFS and TT (Table 3). When animals were head gate restrained
and handled every 10 days, the MFS and TT increased over time. When the head
gate was not used, MFS and TT decreased over time. However, among the calves
that were handled every 20 days, the MFS and TT were similar over time for those
that were either restrained or not restrained in the head gate.
At Day 80 of the study, serum CORT levels were higher (p < .05) for cattle han-
dled every 20 days compared to those handled every 10 days (Table 1), and heifers
had higher (p < .05) levels of CORT than bulls. The interaction between handling
frequency and sex was significant (p < .05) for CORT, and levels in heifers com-
pared to bulls were 134% higher in the 10-day handling treatment and 194%
higher in the 20-day handling treatment (Figure 10).
 EFFECTS ON CALVES’ BEHAVIOR 17

TABLE 3
Interaction Between Handling Frequency, Head Restraint, and
Period for Maximum Force Score and Transit Time

Maximum Force Score (%) Transit Time (sec)

HF 10-Day HF 20-Day HF 10-Day HF 20-Day

Period HR+ HR– HR+ HR– HR+ HR– HR+ HR–

1-day 29.8 42.9 21.5 22.6 17.8 22.5 15.0 16.2

20-day 33.0 24.4 17.9 11.8 19.0 17.1 14.5 12.8
40-day 47.1 12.5 18.5 14.6 26.0 12.9 15.0 14.2
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

60-day 38.4 19.4 32.8 25.8 21.7 15.4 18.7 16.8

80-day 34.5 12.1 18.0 22.3 22.5 13.3 15.4 17.8
SEMa 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.6 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.9

Note. HF = handling frequency; HR = head gate restraint; SEM = standard error of measurement.
aPooled standard error of the mean.

FIGURE 10 Interaction between handling frequency (d = days) and sex for cortisol.

Linear and quadratic equations that were significant (p < .05) for MFS and TT by
EG and HR treatments, sex and handling frequency are shown in Table 4. The MFS
and TT of bulls handled at 10-day intervals who were not restrained in the head gate
decreased (Equations 1–4), and all the regression coefficients were negative. How-
ever, when 10-day HF bulls were head gate restrained without the use of the electric
goad (Equation 5) the response was quadratic, showing an initial increase in MFS
 18 GOONEWARDENE ET AL.

TABLE 4
Linear and Quadratic Trends by Treatment Combination and
Sex for Calves Handled at 10-Day and 20-Day Intervals

Handling
Equation Frequency Treatment
Number (in days) Combination Sex Y X Equation Polynomial p

1 10 EG+ HR– Bull MFS D Y = 44.8 – 41.13X Linear < .01

2 10 EG+ HR– Bull TT D Y = 18.4 – 1.11X Linear < .01
3 10 EG– HR– Bull MFS D Y = 32.7 – 2.66X Linear < .05
4 10 EG– HR– Bull TT D Y = 15.6 – 0.08X Linear < .01
5 10 EG– HR+ Bull MFS D Y = 12.9 + 18.60X – Quad < .01
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

1.91X2
6 10 EG+ HR+ Heifer TT D Y = 12.5 + 1.71X Linear < .05
7 20 EG+ HR+ Bull TT D Y = 8.7 + 0.067X Linear < .05
8 20 EG+ HR+ Bull MFS D Y = 4.1 + 3.42X Linear < .05
9 20 EG+ HR– Heifer MFS D Y = 65.8 – 27.50X + Quad < .01
3.21X2
10 20 EG+ HR– Heifer TT D Y = 0.29 – 0.10X + Quad < .01
0.011X2

Note. EG+ = goad; EG– = no goad; HR+ = head restraint; HR– = no head restraint; MFS =
maximum force score (%); TT = transit time (sec).

followed by a decrease suggesting some habituation to the stimuli. The MFS and TT
for bulls in the EG+ and HR+ treatment remained constantly high throughout the
study (27–46% for MFS and 13–49 sec for TT), suggesting that there was very little
habituation to the stimuli. When both the HR and EG were used on heifers, MFS and
TT increased, showing a greater hesitancy of cattle to move forward toward the stim-
ulus in the chute (Equation 6) as the study progressed.
Among the animals handled every 20 days, linear trends were significant (p <
.05) for MFS and TT of bulls in the EG+ HR+ (Equations 7 & 8). Quadratic effects
were significant (p < .01) for MFS and TT of heifers in the EG+ and HR– treatment
(Equations 9 & 10).

DISCUSSION

In a study where the behaviors of bulls and steers restrained for blood testing
were observed, 51% of the bulls and 66% of the steers were either calm or
showed little agitation in the cattle squeeze; 9% of bulls and 3% of steers were
extremely agitated; and the rest were intermediate (Grandin, 1993b). Although
in our study we observed the behavior of cattle approaching the squeeze, our re-
sults are similar to Grandin’s, as 52% needed no stimulus (PFR Category 1) to
get them to move over a predetermined distance, but 5% needed maximum stim-
ulation (PFR Category 5).
 EFFECTS ON CALVES’ BEHAVIOR 19

This study demonstrates that of the three treatments, HF, HR, and the EG,
calves responded more negatively to the first two and less negatively to the third.
However, when head gate restraint was used on animals that were handled more
frequently (10 days), the negative behavioral responses were amplified. Grandin et
al. (1994) suggested that a research area that needs to be addressed is the effect of a
mildly aversive treatment versus a severely aversive one on the tendency of cattle
to resist changing a learned behavior. Our study showed that responses to mildly
aversive treatments such as frequent handling habituate over time. However, when
a painful or uncomfortable stimulus such as a head restraint is combined with a
milder stimulus, the behavioral responses do not decrease or stabilize even by 80
days on test. The aversion to being head gate restrained may be due to a combina-
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

tion of several factors, such as decreased freedom of movement, pain, discomfort,

and the sudden noise caused by the closing of the head gate. The background noise
at the head gate from the motor that operated the hydraulic system was 70 ± 2 dB
(average), whereas closing the head gate increased the noise level to 99.8 ± 6.3 dB.
Elevated CORT levels have been reported in calves restrained in a head gate (Coo-
per, Evans, Cook, & Rawlings, 1995).

The Restraint Factor

Bull calves that were not restrained in a head gate required less effort to handle
and moved more quickly with time, irrespective of whether or not they were
goaded (Table 4). Thus, the treatment affecting the ease of handling was primar-
ily restraint in the head gate. Whenever it was not used, the animals were easier
to handle. This was supported further by the finding that bulls and heifers
showed linear increases in TT over time (Table 4) when subjected to both the
goad and the head gate. Grandin (1993b) reported that the action of squeezing
was significantly more aversive to bulls and heifers than being weighed on a
scale. Although the goad is deemed to be stressful, the stimulus (zap) is instanta-
neous and, over time, may not be remembered by cattle as a distasteful experi-
ence. The head restraint, however, may be uncomfortable and sometimes pain-
ful, especially when animals try to free themselves from it. Grandin (1993a)
reported that getting hit with the head gate was more aversive to cattle than
blood collection using a halter restraint.

Painful Experiences Remembered

Animals have been shown to remember painful experiences and maintain the
same behaviors even after the painful experience has been removed (Grandin et
al., 1994). When the same facilities are repeatedly used for veterinary treat-
 20 GOONEWARDENE ET AL.

ments, animals are reluctant to enter the weigh scale and the processing area be-
cause they learn to associate that facility with pain (Ewbank, 1961). In extreme
situations such as electronic immobilization, a single experience may be ade-
quate for animals to associate the environment or locality with pain and remem-
ber it for a long time (Grandin, 1993a). Evidence shows that cattle modify their
behavior relative to the severity, frequency, and duration of the stimulus; previ-
ous experience; and learning (Boivin, Le Neindre, Garel, & Chupin, 1994;
Grandin et al., 1994; Hutson, 1980; Kabuga & Appiah, 1992).

Stressors, Habituation, and Aversion

Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

Walking through chutes, standing to be weighed, and sorting are considered

mild stressors, whereas dehorning without an anaesthetic and electro-immobili-
zation are considered extremely severe (Grandin, 1993a). Other management
practices such as the use of mechanical or electric goads, drenching, application
of halters, blood collection, rectal temperature measurement, and head gate re-
straint are ranked in between. Even among these moderate treatments, animals
subjected to specific combinations would show responses that may decline, in-
crease, or remain constant over time, depending on the degree of pain or dis-
comfort. With repeated treatments given frequently, the animal may become ha-
bituated gradually to milder stimuli. In animals subjected to severe treatments
more frequently, such as HR, an aversion may build up over time. Young calves
become easier to handle, and flight distances are reduced with repeated han-
dling. Mature cows show little change (Kabuga & Appiah, 1992).
Mechanical goads and sticks frequently are used to move cattle, whereas
whips and electric goads are less common. Although it was not statistically sig-
nificant, our study showed that when the goad was used on animals, overall
MFS and TT increased by 21.2% and 11.6%, respectively (Table 1). Goaded an-
imals needed more force and walked more slowly than those not subjected to the
goad, and this was significant with repeated use at 80 days (Table 2). In general,
we expect that it would require less force and that animals will move more
quickly if an electric goad is not used repeatedly.
Bulls, steers, and heifers are known to respond differently to management
stressors (Burrow, Seifert, & Corbet, 1988; Hinch & Lynch, 1987; Warriss, 1990).
Overall, bulls reacted more strongly than did heifers to being head gate restrained
(Figures 6 & 7). We recommend that frequent restraint in the head gate be avoided,
especially for bulls, and that any processing or treatment administration be com-
bined and done less frequently.
The level of serum CORT has been used as a measure of stress in cattle (Cooper et
al., 1995; Wohlt, Allyn, Zajac, & Katz, 1994). As shown by their CORT levels (Ta-
ble 1), cattle handled at 10-day intervals appeared to be less stressed than those han-
dled at 20-day intervals. This observation is consistent with the decrease in MFS in
 EFFECTS ON CALVES’ BEHAVIOR 21

the HF10 treatment from1 day to 80 days and the decrease in MFS in the HF10 calves
compared to HF20 on Day 80 of the study (Table 2). Frequent handling of cattle can
make them less excitable and therefore reduce the level of stress. It is plausible that
the 10-day HF calves, having gone through the same experience on eight previous
occasions, became easier to move through the handling facility and were not as
stressed at the end of their travel. As the CORT was assayed once on Day 80 of the
study, it gives only a general idea of the cumulative effects of all the treatments. Our
study showed higher CORT levels in heifers compared to bulls, and heifers appeared
to be more stressed than bulls. Heifers are reported to show higher CORT levels than
bulls (Henricks, Cooper, Spitzer, & Grimes, 1984).
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

COSTS OF PRODUCTION

Animals who are easily handled require less labor, and this can result in lower
costs of production (Kabuga & Appiah, 1992). If unfavorable behavior patterns
are built up among cattle over time due to stressful handling, more time and ef-
fort may be required to work such cattle. This will no doubt add to labor costs.
In our study, the force required to move animals increased for certain treatments
such as HF10 and HR+, and the speed of movement decreased. We have shown
that when more than one treatment is applied, the responses are not only additive
but also multiplicative. This could limit the efficient use of labor, especially in
large cattle production operations.

CONCLUSIONS

Cattle developed an early aversion to frequent handling, which accommodated over

time, and an aversion to being restrained in the head gate midway through the study.
The effects of handling and restraining cattle in the head gate were multiplicative as
cattle responded less negatively to the stimulus of frequent handling. When it was
combined with a head gate hold, however, they responded more negatively. The be-
havioral response to head gate restraint was more pronounced in bulls than in heifers.
Bull calves became easier to handle over time when the head restraint was not used,
and this was independent of the use of the electric goad. Handling frequency, the use
of a goad, and head gate restraint had no effect on average daily gain—suggesting no
chronic compromise of their welfare. However, management practices such as re-
straining cattle in the head gate, especially bulls, should either be done less fre-
quently or combined with other milder practices.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Animal Industry Division of Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Develop-
ment provided financial support for this project.
 22 GOONEWARDENE ET AL.

We appreciate the Kinsella Ranch staff’s assistance in working with the cattle
at the different stations throughout the trial.

REFERENCES

Berg, R. T., Makarechian, M., & Arthur, P. F. (1990). The University of Alberta beef breeding project
after 30 years—a review (Department Animal Science, University of Alberta). Annual Feeders’
Day Report, 69, 65–69.
Boissey, A., & Bouissou, M. (1988). Effects of early handling on heifers’ subsequent reactivity to hu-
mans and to unfamiliar situations. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 20, 259–273.
Boivin, X., Le Neindre, P., Garel, J. P., & Chupin, J. M. (1994). Influence of breed and rearing manage-
ment on cattle reactions during human handling. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 39, 115–122.
Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 08:28 08 June 2015

Burrow, H. M., Seifert, G. W., & Corbet, N. J. (1988). A new technique for measuring temperament in
cattle. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production, 17, 154–157.
Canadian Council of Animal Care. (1993). Guide to the care and use of experimental animals (Vol. 2).
Ottawa, Canada: Author.
Cooper, C., Evans, A. C. O., Cook, S., & Rawlings, N. C. (1995). Cortisol, progesterone and beta-endor-
phin response to stress in calves. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 75, 197–201.
Ewbank, R. (1961). The behavior of cattle in crushes. Veterinary Record, 73, 853–856.
Fordyce, G., Dodt, R. M., & Wythes, J. R. (1988). Cattle temperament in northern Queensland: Factors
affecting temperament. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 28, 683–687.
Grandin, T. (1993a). The effect of previous experiences on livestock behavior during handling.
Agri-Practice, 14, 15–20.
Grandin, T. (1993b). Behavioral agitation during handling of cattle is persistent over time. Applied Ani-
mal Behavior Science, 36, 1–9.
Grandin, T., Odde, K. G., Schutz, D. N., & Behrns, L. M. (1994). The reluctance of cattle to change
learned choice may confound preference tests. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 39, 21–28.
Henricks, D. M., Cooper, J. W., Spitzer, J. C., & Grimes, L. W. (1984). Sex differences in plasma
cortisol and growth in the bovine. Journal of Animal Science, 59, 376–383.
Hinch, G. N., & Lynch, J. J. (1987). A note on the effect of castration on the ease of movement and han-
dling of young cattle in yards. Animal Production, 45, 317–320.
Hutson, G. D. (1980). The effect of previous experience on sheep movement through yards. Applied An-
imal Ethology, 6, 233–240.
Kabuga, J. D., & Appiah, P. (1992). A note on the ease of handling and flight distance of Bos indicus, Bos
taurus and their crossbreeds. Animal Production, 54, 309–311.
Snell, E. J. (1964). A scaling procedure for ordered categorical data. Biometrics, 20, 592–607.
Statistical Analysis System Institute, Inc. (1990). SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. Cary, NC: Author.
Warriss, P. D. (1990). The handling of cattle pre-slaughter and its effects on carcass and meat quality in
sheep. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 28, 171–186.
Wohlt, J. E., Allyn, M. E., Zajac, P. K., & Katz, L. S. (1994). Cortisol increases in plasma of Holstein
heifer calves from handling and method of electrical dehorning. Journal of Dairy Science, 77,
3725–3729.