Cited by 25Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesAnimal health and immunology

Flight distance of dairy cows and its relationship to daily routine management procedures and productivity

UETAKE, Katsuji, MORITA, Shieru, HOSHIBA, Shinji, TANAKA, Toshio·2002·Animal Science Journal

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

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1344-3941.2002.00038.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
UETAKE, K., MORITA, S., HOSHIBA, S., & TANAKA, T.
Affiliations
  • Azabu University (JP)
  • Rakuno Gakuen University (JP)
Corresponding author
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