Flight distance of dairy cows and its relationship to daily routine management procedures and productivity
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to determine to what extent the flight distance of cows to humans was influenced by sire and management procedures before and after maturity, and whether there was a correlation between the flight distance and productivity on commercial dairy farms. Flight distance of 84 Holstein cows, the stockperson's daily routine management procedures and production performance were recorded repeatedly on eight commercial dairy farms. The management procedures for the animals at the suckling, growing, lactating and dry stages were classified into four categories by degree of tactile interactions between the stockperson and the animal: hand procedures with touch on (category A), nearby (category B) and apart (category C) from the animal, and machinery procedures (category D). There was no apparent sire effect on flight distance (P = 0.08), whereas the flight distance ranged from 1.17 ± 0.86 to 4.47 ± 2.01 m by farm (P < 0.01), and gradually shortened with repetition (P < 0.05). Regression analysis indicated that the length of time of category B at the suckling stage and category B at the dry stage accounted for 37% and 32% of the variation in flight distance, respectively. As for the total time of the four procedure categories, growing stage was the prime predictor of flight distance, which accounted for 36% of the variation. Flight distance tended to correlate with the first calving age (r = 0.66, P = 0.07). These results suggest the importance of non‐pro…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Forceful and coercive handling methods are stressful, and chemical restraint without effective positive reinforcement training beforehand is stressful and frightening from the animal's perspective.
“For example, it is well known that forceful and coercive handling methods are stressful [55,56] and that chemical restraint without effective positive reinforcement training beforehand is stressful and frightening from the animal's perspective.”
From The Concept of Agency, Animal Wellbeing, and the Practical Realities of Ex Situ Breeding Programs in Zoos and Aquariums (2024) · cites this paper as [56]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Norman, M., & Brando, S. (2024) · Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens · doi:10.3390/jzbg5040038 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“For example, it is well known that forceful and coercive handling methods are stressful [55,56] and that chemical restraint without effective positive reinforcement training beforehand is stressful and frightening from the animal’s perspective.”
- Authors
- UETAKE, K., MORITA, S., HOSHIBA, S., & TANAKA, T.
- Affiliations
- Azabu University (JP)
- Rakuno Gakuen University (JP)
- Corresponding author
- UETAKE, Katsuji
- ORCID
- UETAKE, Katsuji
- Venue
- Animal Science Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-08
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 279-285
- ISSN
- 1344-3941 (ISSN-L)
- 1740-0929
- OpenAlex
- W1982510175
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Animal Science Journal (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private Schools of Japan
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal health and immunology
- Keywords
- flight distance, dairy cattle, human-animal interaction, touch interaction, Holstein cows, sire effects, dry period, age at first calving, animal welfare, dairy productivity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review