Müller R, Schwartzkopf-Genswein K S, Shah M A, von Keyserlingk M A G
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Canada.
J Anim Sci. 2008 May;86(5):1215-22. doi: 10.2527/jas.2007-0452. Epub 2008 Feb 13.
The use of the neck region as an injection site in cattle is becoming routine. Use of a blind may reduce aversive behavior caused by the presence of the person administering the injection. To evaluate whether cattle react to the proximity of the stockperson or to the actual injection, one hundred twenty 10-mo-old Angus steers (298 +/- 28 kg of BW; mean +/- SD) were assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups using a partial crossover design (neck/sham injection x blind/no blind) replicated over 2 d (3 d apart). Steers were restrained for a total of 60 s in a squeeze chute, with treatment being administered 20 s after entry. Animal reactivity was rated using 2 scoring methods, including a visual and an electronic score, for three 20-s intervals (pre-treatment, treatment, and posttreatment intervals). Flight speed (m/s) was used as a measure of aversion to the treatments and was taken upon release from the chute. No interactions (P > 0.10) were observed between the blind and injection treatments for any of the measurements taken. No treatment or day effect on flight speed (2.7 vs. 2.6 m/s; P > 0.03) was observed; however, the correlation between days (r = 0.74; P < 0.001) was significant. Visual scores indicated that injected steers were more agitated during the treatment interval than were the sham injected steers (1.9 vs. 1.6, respectively; P = 0.01). However, no differences (P > 0.10) were found between injection and sham injection treatments for any of the electronic scores. Steers exposed to the blind had lower electronic reactivity scores (P < 0.05) than those not exposed to the blind, which was in contrast to the results obtained for the visual scores (P < 0.05). Discrepancies between reactivity scores may be due to the difficulty of accurately assessing minor animal responses using the visual method. The presence of a handler during an injection procedure could be a contributor to the aversion response observed in cattle undergoing routine neck injections, and use of a blind helped to reduce the reactivity of the steers.
在牛身上将颈部作为注射部位的做法正变得越来越常规。使用遮挡物可能会减少因注射人员在场而引起的厌恶行为。为了评估牛是对饲养员的靠近做出反应还是对实际注射做出反应,采用部分交叉设计(颈部/假注射×有遮挡物/无遮挡物),将120头10月龄的安格斯阉牛(体重298±28千克;平均值±标准差)分配到4个处理组中的1组,并在2天内(间隔3天)重复进行。阉牛在挤压通道中总共被限制60秒,进入后20秒进行处理。使用两种评分方法对动物的反应性进行评分,包括视觉评分和电子评分,在三个20秒的时间段(处理前、处理中和处理后时间段)进行。飞行速度(米/秒)被用作对处理厌恶程度的衡量指标,在从通道释放时进行测量。对于所进行的任何测量,在有遮挡物和注射处理之间均未观察到交互作用(P>0.10)。未观察到处理或天数对飞行速度有影响(2.7对2.6米/秒;P>0.03);然而,天数之间的相关性(r = 0.74;P<0.001)是显著的。视觉评分表明,在处理时间段内,注射的阉牛比假注射的阉牛更躁动(分别为1.9对1.6;P = 0.01)。然而,对于任何电子评分,在注射和假注射处理之间均未发现差异(P>0.10)。暴露于遮挡物的阉牛的电子反应性得分低于未暴露于遮挡物的阉牛(P<0.05),这与视觉评分的结果相反(P<0.05)。反应性得分之间的差异可能是由于使用视觉方法准确评估动物的轻微反应存在困难。在注射过程中饲养员的存在可能是接受常规颈部注射的牛出现厌恶反应的一个因素,而使用遮挡物有助于降低阉牛的反应性。