Effects of an environmental enrichment using a drum can on behavioral, physiological and productive characteristics in fattening beef cattle

Animal Science Journal

Volumn 77, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 352-362

  Ishiwata, Toshie ^a   Uetake, Katsuji ^a   Abe, Naoshige ^b   Eguchi, Yusuke ^a   Tanaka, Toshio ^a  

^a AZABU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b TAMAGAWA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Behavior; Environmental enrichment; Fattening beef cattle; Growth; Physiology

Indexed keywords

BOS TAURUS;

EID: 33744493956     PISSN: 13443941     EISSN: 17400929     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2006.00359.x     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bayne KAL, Hurst JK, Dexter SL. 1991. Evaluation of the preference to and behavioral effects of an enriched environment on male rhesus monkeys. Laboratory Animal Science 42, 38 45.
2. Beattie VE, O'connell NE, Kilpatrick DJ, Moss BW. 2000a. Influence of environmental enrichment on welfare-related behavioural and physiological parameters in growing pigs. Animal Science 70, 443 450.
3. Beattie VE, O'connell NE, Moss BW. 2000b. Influence of environmental enrichment on the behaviour, performance and meat quality of domestic pigs. Livestock Production Science 65, 71 79.
4. Blackshaw JK, Blackshaw AW, McGlone JJ. 1997. Buller steer syndrome review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54, 97 108.
5. Bokkers EAM, Koene P. 2001. Activity, oral behaviour and slaughter data as welfare indicators in veal calves: a comparison of three housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 1 15.
6. Day JEL, Spoolder HAM, Burfoot A, Chamberlain HL, Edwards SA. 2002. The separate and interactive effects of handling and environmental enrichment on the behaviour and welfare of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 177 192.
7. de Jong IC, Ekkel ED, van de Burgwal JA, Lambooij E, Korte SM, Ruis MAW, Koolhaas JM, Blokhuis HJ. 1998. Effects of strawbedding on physiological responses to stressors and behavior in growing pigs. Physiology and Behavior 64, 303 310.
8. de Jong IC, Prelle IT, van de Burgwal JA, Lambooij E, Korte SM, Blokhuis HJ, Koolhaas JM. 2000. Effects of environmental enrichment on behavioral responses to novelty, learning, and memory, and the circadian rhythm in cortisol in growing pigs. Physiology and Behavior 68, 571 578.
9. Fraser D, Weary DM, Pajor EA, Milligan BN. 1997. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6, 187 205.
10. Hasegawa N, Nishiwaki A, Sugawara K, Ito I. 1997. The effects of social exchange between two groups of lactating primiparous heifers on milk production, dominance order, behavior and adrenocortical response. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 51, 15 27.
11. Herskin MS, Munksgaard L, Kristensen AM. 2003. Testing responses to novelty in cattle: behavioural and physiological responses to novel food. Animal Science 76, 327 340.
12. Hill JD, McGlone JJ, Fullwood SD, Miller MF. 1998. Environmental enrichment influences on pig behavior, performance and meat quality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57, 51 68.
13. Ishiwata T, Uetake K, Tanaka T. 2002. Use of a box to prevent agonistic behavior after regrouping in isolated and non-isolated pigs. Animal Science Journal 73, 287 292.
14. Japan Livestock Industry Association. 2000. Shiryou to nikushitsu no kankei (The relationship between feed and beef quality) : In : Japanese Feeding Standard for Beef Cattle, pp. 99 116. JLIA, Tokyo.
15. Jones RB, Carmichael NL, Rayner E. 2000. Pecking preferences and pre-dispositions in domestic chicks: implications for the development of environmental enrichment devices. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69, 291 312.
16. Klont RE, Hulsegge B, Hoving-Bolink AH, Gerritzen MA, Kurt E, Winkelman-Goedhart HA, de Jong IC, Kranen RW. 2001. Relationships between behavioral and meat quality characteristics of pigs raised under barren and enriched housing conditions. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2835 2843.
17. Krohn CC. 1994. Behaviour of dairy cows kept in extensive (loose housing/pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments. III. Grooming, exploration and abnormal behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42, 73 86.
18. Loerch SC, Fluharty FL. 2000. Use of trainer animals to improve performance and health of newly arrived feedlot calves. Journal of Animal Science 78, 539 545.
19. Newberry RC. 1995. Environmental enrichment: increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44, 229 243.
20. Pelly MC, Lirette A, Tennessen T. 1995. Observations on the responses of feedlot cattle to attempted environmental enrichment. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 75, 631 632.
21. Redbo I. 1998. Relations between oral stereotypes, open-field behavior, and pituitary-adrenal system in growing dairy cattle. Physiology and Behavior 64, 273 278.
22. Redbo I, Nordblad A. 1997. Stereotypies in heifers are affected by feeding regime. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53, 193 202.
23. Reinhardt V, Reinhardt A. 2003. Refinement and environmental enrichment for all laboratory animals. Cited 3 Mar 2004. Available from URL: http://www.awionline.org/lab_animals/biblio/laball.htm
24. Sato S, Nagamine R, Kubo T. 1994. Tongue-playing in tethered Japanese Black cattle: diurnal patterns, analysis of variance and behaviour sequences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 39 47.
25. Schaefer AL, Salomons MO, Tong AKW, Sather AP, Lepage P. 1990. The effect of environmental enrichment on aggression in newly weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27, 41 52.
26. Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS 1990. SAS/STAT User's Guide, 4th edn. SAS Institude, Cary, NC.
27. Veissier I, Chazal P, Pradel P, Le Neindre P. 1997. Providing social contacts and objects for nibbling moderates reactivity and oral behaviors in veal calves. Journal of Animal Science 75, 356 365.
28. Wilson SC, Mitlöhner FM, Morrow-Tesch J, Dailey JW, McGlone JJ. 2002. An assessment of several potential enrichment devices for feedlot cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 259 265.