# data[].attributes.body
In the pic you can see a a harness that has a device that tracks feeding behavior. This helps do research on feeding behavior. It will let researchers know where the cattle are eating, what, and when.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The calf will communicate vocally with the cow.
2. The calf will nurse from its mother.
3. The calf gets up and walks around when it can stand

# data[].attributes.body
1. The cow will clean off the calf.
2. She helps the calf up and walk.
3. They communicate with their calf.

# data[].attributes.body
This video that i got off of youtube describes and shows all of the signs that a cow is in heat and their behaviors.

# data[].attributes.body
Bulls will put presser on the back of the cow to see if she is ready to be mounted. In this picture bull is mounting the cow.
The picture came form. http://gpvec.unl.edu/bse/breeding_mgmt/social_bhvr.htm

# data[].attributes.body
In small herds it is linear and in big herds that do not see each other every day it can be complex. Here is a link to an article that explains it more in depth. http://dairy.ifas.ufl.edu/rns/2010/6-Huxley.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
They are butting heads to show dominance for many different reasons. They could be trying to figure out the social rank of the herd, if one of them was just put out there. They are fighting but not to hurt each other.
I got the picture from  http://breedingback.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-and-reproductive-behaviour-of.html

# data[].attributes.body
Cattle use auditory communication to tell their calf what to do by changing the call. When I say change their call, I mean the length and tone and even the pitch to let them know different things. Cows use visual communication like head movements and body language to communicate with humans that are trying to take he calf, like in calf watch I have seen this behavior. The best example of chemical/smell communication is when it comes to mating in cattle. The bull will smell pheromones from the cows and will know when they are ready to mate. Cattle use tactile to communicate by kicking a calf that is not theirs that is trying to milk. I got all of this information from class or personal experiences.

# data[].attributes.body
The gate pushing the cattle is positive punishment because it is making them not sand in the same spot. The head gate can be used as negative punishment, it takes away their freedom to move. When you let them go it is positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement depending on how you look at it. Ether they get their freedom or take away the presser.

# data[].attributes.body
Cattle have pore depth perception. This makes it hard for them to tell if a shadow is a hole or not, so it can be hard to work with in a shadowy area. I got the photo from https://www.shutterstock.com/search/cow+eye.

# data[].attributes.body
Operant conditioning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
JavaScript is disabled on your browser. Please enable JavaScript to use all the features on this page.

Highlights

*

It is often assumed cattle are not capable of controlling defecation and urination.

*

We tested if calves could be trained to urinate by classical or operant conditioning.

*

Classical conditioning did not alter the frequency of urinations.

*

Operantly conditioned calves urinated more frequently than controls.

*

Operant conditioning could be used to train cattle to urinate in specific areas.

Abstract

The accumulation of faeces and urine in dairy barns is a cause of cattle and human health concerns and environmental problems. It is usually assumed that cattle are not capable of controlling defecation and urination. We tested whether calves could be taught to urinate in a location using either classical or operant conditioning. Twenty-four female Holstein calves were alternately assigned as treatment or control (experiment 1: n = 12, median age, range = 39, 31-50 days; experiment 2: n = 12, median age, range = 50, 29-64 days). Experiment 1 used classical conditioning, involving repeated pairing of entry into a stall and injection of a diuretic. During the training period (days 1-5) treatment calves were repeatedly placed in the stall (150 cm × 45 cm × 120 cm) and injected IV with diuretic (at 0.5 mL/kg BW) to induce urination. During the test period (days 6-15) calves were held in the stall for 10 min without diuretic injection, and urinations, defecations and vocalisations were recorded. The procedure was identical for control calves except saline was used in place of a diuretic. In the test period, the classically conditioned calves did not urinate more than controls (means ± SE: 4.3 ± 1.28 vs. 6.0 ± 1.41, for treatment and control calves, respectively). In experiment 2, calves were trained using operant conditioning. On training days, operant calves were placed in the stall, received IV of diuretic (at 0.5 mL/kg BW) and, upon urination, were released from the stall to receive approximately 250 mL of milk reward. On test days, calves were placed in the stall but did not receive the diuretic; calves that urinated received the milk reward but calves failing to urinate within 15 min were given 5 min "time out" and received diuretic the following day. Yoked controls were never given diuretic but held in the stall for the same amount of time and received the same "reward" or "punishment" as their matched operant calf the previous day. Urinations, defecations and vocalisations occurring in the stall on test days were compared between treatment calves and controls. Calves trained using operant conditioning had a higher frequency of urinations in the stall than their controls (means ± SE = 5.25 ± 0.95 vs. 2.32 ± 0.52). The results of our experiment show it may be feasible to train cattle to urinate in specific areas using operant conditioning.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Operant conditioning of urination by calves

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
JavaScript is disabled on your browser. Please enable JavaScript to use all the features on this page. * It is often assumed cattle are not capable of controlling defecation and urination. * We tested if calves could be trained to urinate by classical or operant conditioning.

# data[].attributes.body
This is when a calf is learning were the milk is and how to get it. I got this photo from https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/livestock/ensure-cows-get-adequate-nutrition-after-calving/

# data[].attributes.body
These numbers tell us how easy it is for the trait to be inherited. These helps pick out the one you want and know how often the offspring will get it.

# data[].attributes.body
This study shows some link to behavior and genes. It talks about how calm cattle have higher weight gain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Numerous studies show that selecting beef cattle for a calm temperament improves weight gain and meat quality. Over the years, however, several ranchers have reported an increase in poor mothering among their cows. Perhaps this is the result of intensive selection during the last decade for calmer, more docile cows.

Colorado State University (CSU) graduate student Cornelia Flörcke recently spent three months on a Red Angus ranch in Colorado to learn more about how different cows protect their newborn calves. Good protective behaviors will become increasingly important as wolves spread into more and more states.

Flörcke evaluated a total of 341 cow-calf pairs, with behavioral testing performed on each cow-calf pair that had a fully mobile calf within 24 hours after calving. To test how each pair responded to a potential threat, the pair was circled in a gradually tightening spiral by a strange vehicle. This movement resembled that of an approaching predator.

The gray GMC utility vehicle, which was totally different than the ranch's white trucks, circled slowly, gradually drawing closer to the pair. A hunter's range finder was used to measure the distance between the vehicle and the cow-calf pair at which different behaviors were observed.

Only three really poor mothers abandoned their calves; the other cows placed themselves between their calf and the vehicle upon perceiving the presence of the vehicle as a potential threat.

As the vehicle approached, 78% of the cows called their calf by vocalizing (mooing). The three really poor mothers failed to vocalize. In addition, 13% of the cows reacted to the vehicle by lowering their heads and acting aggressively.

There was also an interesting age effect, as older, more experienced cows reacted to the vehicle when it was at a greater distance than younger cows.

Hair whorls and mothering

Research at CSU in 1996 found a correlation between hair whorl patterns on cattle's foreheads and temperament. Cattle with a high spiral hair whorl above the eyes became more agitated when handled in a squeeze chute or in the auction ring (see illustration).

In that study, 14% of 1,500 cattle in a Colorado feedlot had high hair whorls above their eyes. In Flörcke's recent study on mothering, only 8% of the mother cows had a high hair whorl, while 37% had a middle hair whorl and 26% had a hair whorl below the eyes. Interestingly, 11% of the cows had multiple hair whorls, 7% had abnormal flare patterns, and 11% had no hair whorl. This may be reflective of years of selection for calm temperament.

Flörcke also found that the height of the spiral hair whorl pattern and the type of hair whorl pattern were associated with cow behavior. Cows with high whorls above the eyes, or multiple hair whorls on the forehead, reacted at a greater distance by orienting themselves toward the vehicle. These animals were more vigilant.

Cows with a hair whorl above the eyes also called their calf when the vehicle was at a greater distance. There was no relationship between hair whorl type and position on cattle aggressively lowering their heads.

Ranchers often make such comments as, "she's a wild cow but she's given me a calf every year." Other anecdotal observations on ranches indicate that the valuable protective traits that protect the calf may be due to vigilance, not aggression.

Cows with high hair whorls have been observed as friendly toward people. The rancher had selected his cows for a calf every year and a willingness to approach people.

More information is needed on how genetics affects mothering behavior and protectiveness. Possibly there may be two aspects of mothering behavior that may be controlled by separate genetic mechanisms. The two traits may be vigilance and differences in the strength of maternal bonding with the calf.

The beef industry definitely doesn't want cows like the three bad mothers that abandoned their calves. These cows walked away without calling their calf or positioning themselves between the vehicle and their calf. The ideal mother cow protects her calf against predators without becoming dangerously aggressive toward people.

Temple Grandin is a professor of animal science at Colorado State University (CSU) in Fort Collins. Cornelia Flörcke is a CSU graduate research assistant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Study Examines Cow's Protection Behavior

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Numerous studies show that selecting beef cattle for a calm temperament improves weight gain and meat quality. Over the years, however, several ranchers have reported an increase in poor mothering among their cows. Perhaps this is the result of intensive selection during the last decade for calmer, more docile cows.

# data[].attributes.body
I picked beef cattle for a couple of reasons. Reason one they are the type of livestock that I know the most about. The second reason is that I would like to know more about how beef cattle act and why they act that way. I am looking into getting into the beef cattle business when I graduate. I have grown up helping neighbors with their beef cattle and have noticed how they act somewhat. My goal for this is to turn what I have experienced into a useful background that I understand and can use latter in life to help my neighbors and I.