Revisiting cattle temperament in beef cow-calf systems: Insights from farmers’ perceptions about an autochthonous breed
Abstract
Understanding temperament is an important part of cattle production since undesirable temperament may cause serious problems associated with aggression, maternal care, and human safety. However, little is known about how farmers define or assess temperament, especially in autochthonous cattle breeds. The aim of this study was to explore perceptions of farmers about the temperament of the Pyrenean cattle breed with special attention to beef cow-calf systems in Spain. The methodology used to obtain the information was focus group discussions (FGD). Farmers defined temperament as a behavioural response to challenging situations imposed by human handling. Specific terms used were related to active or passive reactions to fear (e.g., “strong”, “aggressive”, “nervous”, “fearful”). The speed of response to stimuli was also important. Female temperament was thought to become more docile with age while bull temperament was more variable. Maternal aggressiveness was highlighted as a potential human safety problem, but also desirable in an extensively bred animal who may need to defend calves against predators. Anatomical characteristics were seen as unreliable predictors of temperament, while behavioural indicators were more widely used, such as “alertness”, which was a general trait of the breed, and “gaze”, which, when associated with an alert expression, suggests a potential threat. Sensory acuity, such as sight and smell, were thought to be related with temperament in some FGDs but there was no overall agreement as to whether different behavioural responses were due to differences in sensory acuity. The results from the study could be useful during training programs or in the development of new genetic selection schemes and evaluation protocols involving cattle temperament. Estévez-Moreno, L.X.; Miranda de la Lama, G.C.; Villarroel, M.; García, L.; Abecia, J.A.; Santolaria, P.; María, G.A.
Full text
animals Article Revisiting Cattle Temperament in Beef Cow-Calf Systems: Insights from Farmers’ Perceptions about an Autochthonous Breed Laura X. Estévez-Moreno 1,*, Genaro C. Miranda-de la Lama 1, Morris Villarroel 2, Laura García3, JoséAlfonso Abecia 4, Pilar Santolaria 5and Gustavo A. María1 Citation: Estévez-Moreno, L.X.; Miranda-de la Lama, G.C.; Villarroel, M.; García, L.; Abecia, J.A.; Santolaria, P.; María, G.A. Revisiting Cattle Temperament in Beef Cow-Calf Systems: Insights from Farmers’ Perceptions about an Autochthonous Breed. Animals 2021,11, 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010082 Received: 2 December 2020 Accepted: 30 December 2020 Published: 5 January 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1Department of Animal Production & Food Science, Agri-Food Institute of Aragon IA2, University of Zaragoza , 50013 Zaragoza, Spain; [email protected] (G.C.M.-d.l.L.); [email protected] (G.A.M.) 2 CEIGRAM, ETSIAAB-Agricultural Production, Technical University of Madrid (UPM), 28040 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] 3Aragonese Association of Farmers of Pyrenean Cattle Breed (ASAPI), 50194 Zaragoza, Spain; [email protected] 4Department of Animal Production and Food Sciences, Environmental Sciences Institute (IUCA), University of Zaragoza, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain; [email protected] 5Department of Animal Production and Food Sciences, Environmental Sciences Institute (IUCA), University of Zaragoza, 22071 Huesca, Spain; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Simple Summary: Temperament is a key issue in beef cattle production systems, as it defines the responses of animals to human handling and to potentially challenging or fear-eliciting situations. However, little is known about how farmers define or assess temperament. Focus group discussions were carried out in order to analyze the perceptions of farmers regarding a series of temperament traits of animals, focusing on the Pyrenean cattle breed. Farmers described animal temperament using several adjectives such as “strong”, “aggressive”, “nervous”, “fearful”, “brave”, or “smart”, which account for their integrative vision of this concept. They reported a differential long-term development of the temperament of cows and bulls and mentioned that external features are not reliable indicators of temperament as compared with animal behavior. Sensory acuity, such as sight, hearing, and smell, were thought to be related to temperament. The results of this study are useful to better understand the decisions of farmers about cattle buying, selling, or culling, and their perspective about temperament should be considered in the research and design of genetic improvement schemes. Abstract: Understanding temperament is an important part of cattle production since undesirable temperament may cause serious problems associated with aggression, maternal care, and human safety. However, little is known about how farmers define or assess temperament, especially in autochthonous cattle breeds. The aim of this study was to explore perceptions of farmers about the temperament of the Pyrenean cattle breed with special attention to beef cow-calf systems in Spain. The methodology used to obtain the information was focus group discussions (FGD). Farmers defined temperament as a behavioural response to challenging situations imposed by human handling. Specific terms used were related to active or passive reactions to fear (e.g., “strong”, “aggressive”, “nervous”, “fearful”). The speed of response to stimuli was also important. Female temperament was thought to become more docile with age while bull temperament was more variable. Maternal aggressiveness was highlighted as a potential human safety problem, but also desirable in an extensively bred animal who may need to defend calves against predators. Anatomical characteristics were seen as unreliable predictors of temperament, while behavioural indicators were more widely used, such as “alertness”, which was a general trait of the breed, and “gaze”, which, when associated with an alert expression, suggests a potential threat. Sensory acuity, such as sight and smell, were thought to be related with temperament in some FGDs but there was no overall agreement as to whether different behavioural responses were due to differences in sensory acuity. The results from Animals 2021,11, 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010082 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/animals
Animals 2021,11, 82 2 of 18 the study could be useful during training programs or in the development of new genetic selection schemes and evaluation protocols involving cattle temperament. Keywords: cattle temperament; focus group discussion; human-animal interaction; farmers perception; autochthonous cattle breed 1. Introduction The study of individual differences in animal behavior that are consistent across contexts and across time is now wide-spread throughout animal sciences, giving rise to terms such as animal temperament, personality or coping styles [ 1 – 3 ]. Although some authors use these terms interchangeably, others like Finkemeier et al. [ 4 ] point out that temperament and coping styles overlap with personality, because they are sub-aspects of the whole personality concept. In farm animal research, the study of temperament has focused on analyzing behavioral responses of animals to potentially fear-eliciting or challenging situations related to production conditions, including responses to human handling [ 5 ]. Cattle temperament is important for the cattle industry since it is related to productive and reproductive performance, work safety, and animal welfare [ 2 , 3 ]. There has also been a trend towards the genetic selection of docile and safe-to-handle animals, which has further promoted research on cattle temperament, mostly based on the observation of specific parameters with different levels of participation by observers and the incorporation of precision measuring devices [ 6 – 9 ]. Widespread attention has been given to the relationship between cattle temperament and the response to specific (human) handling practices, heritability, and some productive parameters [ 10 , 11 ]. Meanwhile, human-centered research has focused on identifying certain management practices, attitudes, and other characteristics of stock people that may be linked to different facets of animal behavior and welfare [ 12 – 14 ]. However, there is still little research on cattle temperament from the farmers’ perspective. The progressive industrialization of beef and milk production and the concomitant increase in herd size may affect a farmer’s knowledge about individual cow temperament [ 15 ]. In spite of that, there are small and medium-scale farmers in different regions around the world that continue to handle cattle directly and are able to identify animals individually. This is the case for most farms with suckling cows of autochthonous breeds, used for meat production in Spain, which are usually managed by families in extensive or semi-extensive systems. Repeated handling and observation over months and years can provide this farmers with an integrated understanding of their animals’ behaviour and temperament [ 16 ]. Based on this premise, we used the Pyrenean breed to approach perceptions of Spanish farmers about cattle temperament, using focus group discussions (FGDs). The FGD methodology has been used before to explore farmers’ beliefs, perceptions, knowledge, and perspectives about several issues related to cattle production. These include calf health [ 17 ], welfare challenges and solutions [ 18 ], cattle dehorning [ 19 ], biosecurity [ 20 ], expectations and receptivity regarding animal welfare advice [ 21 ], and different topics related to epidemiology [22]. Pyrenean cattle are an autochthonous Spanish breed that was in danger of extinction during the 1960s and 1970s [ 23 ] but has recently increased in numbers, being now listed as a “Promoted Autochthonous Breed” by the Spanish Government, with its own herd book and genetic breeding scheme. Their conservation helps to support livelihoods and avoid rural depopulation in Spain, and their production systems, based on an extensive production system, meet multiple conditions to be commercialized under labels that incorporate sustainability criteria. From a scientific viewpoint, autochthonous breeds can be a useful source of information to understand the basis of bovine behavior, with possible applications in commercial breeds, because of their adaptation to diverse agroecosystem conditions and a shorter history of genetic specialization towards dairy or meat production. The aim of this study was to explore cattle farmer perceptions about the temperament of the Pyrenean
Animals 2021,11, 82 3 of 18 cattle breed with special attention to cow-calf systems in Spain. Specifically, we wanted to describe commonly held views, as well as points of disagreement, regarding: (i) the main temperament-related traits of the breed, (ii) the ontogenetic and phylogenetic factors that may influence temperament, and (iii) the mechanisms through which farmers perceive animal temperament. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Description The Pyrenean cattle breed is an autochthonous breed closely linked to the mountain landscapes of the Pyrenees. Although it has been described in works that go back to the 19th century, it was officially recognized as a breed in 1905, with the creation of the Herd Book, which has been maintained until today. Since 1920, it has been progressively specialized towards meat production, replacing the triple work-meat-milk aptitude that it previously had [ 24 ]. Although originally its population was concentrated in the Autonomous Communities of Navarra, the Basque Country and Aragon, it has spread to other regions of Spain, now being used on 1047 farms with a census of 26,399 cows (females > 2 years) currently registered in the breed’s Herd Book [ 25 ]. In general, cows feed on mountain pastures or grasslands (private or communal near their stables during the summer, spring and autumn). During the winter they are kept indoors with hay, cereal straw and sometimes given feed. The main differences in management are related to the characteristics of the grazing areas, the distance from the stables, and the places where animals spend the night. The calves are fattened in feedlots or on farms, generally using concentrate and straw. The study used focus group discussions (FGD) to collect data about participants’ knowledge and opinions regarding Pyrenean cattle temperament, using an inductive and exploratory approach. FGD is a qualitative research method where a small group of participants discusses a particular issue under the guidance of a moderator who keeps the discussion as focused, non-threatening and ‘natural-feeling’ as possible, with minimal self-involvement [ 26 , 27 ]. Four FGDs (Table 1) were held between March and June 2019, in the Autonomous Communities of Aragon (2), Navarra (1), and the Basque Country (1), which account for 67.9% of registered suckling cow population [25]. Table 1. Characteristics of participants in the Focus Group Discussions (FGD). Location Total Years of Experience in Pyrenean Cattle Breeding. Freq. (%) Experience with Other Breeds. Freq. (%) Include Fattening. Freq.(%) 3–9 10–20 >20 FGD 1. Aragon (Province of Huesca) 8 2 (25.0) 4 (50.0) 2 (25.0) 3 (37.5) 1 (12.5) FGD 2. Navarra 9 3 (33.3) 2 (22.2) 4 (44.4) 6 (66.7) 3 (33.3) FGD 3. Basque Country 11 2 (18.2) 3 (27.2) 6 (54.5) 6 (54.5) na. FGD 4. Aragon (Province of Teruel) 9 2 (22.2) 6 (66.7) 1 (11.1) 6 (66.7) 3 (33.3) na. = information not available. In each autonomous community, a virtual invitation to participate in the FGD was sent via the National Confederation of Pyrenean Cattle Breed Associations (known by its Spanish acronym CONASPI) to the members of the regional associations. In order to favor a certain compatibility and cohesiveness of the group and to facilitate the free expression of participants, some inclusion criteria were applied. Farmers needed to: (i) be currently employed as cattle owners (no retired farmers), (ii) have at least three years of experience in breeding Pyrenean cattle, (iii) be in charge of handling animals directly, and (iv) not be involved/aware of the scientific study of temperament. The farmers that finally attended the invitation were all male, between 25 and 65 years, from cattle farming families, having had direct contact with cattle of several breeds during most of their lifetime. The number
Animals 2021,11, 82 4 of 18 of participants ranged from 8 to 11 people per FGD, an effective group size to encourage open discussion [ 28 ] with a total of 37 participants overall. A technician from the local farmer associations linked to CONASPI also attended each FGD, and was asked to act as an observer and limit input until the end of the discussion. 2.2. Interview Guide and Data Collection A common meeting agenda was designed for each FGD to enable a joint analysis of all the material collected. Each FGD lasted between 60 and 90 min and was recorded (with participants’ consent) and facilitated by the same two researchers, a moderator and an assistant, neither having had previous contact with the participants. The moderator introduced each topic, promoted discussion, exhorted excessively talkative participants to let others talk, and encouraged all participants to speak, without introducing bias or pressures [ 28 ], while the assistant took notes on the content of the discussions and kept the time. At the beginning of the focus group, participants were informed about the objectives and dynamics of the activity, the anonymity and confidentiality, and the possibility to withdraw from the discussion at any moment. After recording verbal consent from all participants to be included in the study, they introduced themselves, mentioning their name and years of experience in Pyrenean cattle breeding. A semi-structured guide was developed with open-ended questions that were asked in all groups to collect farmer perceptions on the following three axes of discussion: (1) definition of the term “temperament”, characteristics of Pyrenean breed temperament and comparison with other known breeds; (2) anatomical and behavioural indicators of temperament and (3) ontogenetic and phylogenetic factors that may influence temperament. Some general questions were used to introduce and prompt the discussion of each topic (Table 2) in all FGDs, but, according to each FGD dynamic, additional follow-up questions were asked by the moderator when deemed necessary. At the end of each FGD, the moderator summarised the main topics covered (consensus and disagreements) and noted any unresolved issues for clarification from the group [29]. Table 2. General questions used to prompt discussions of each topic in the FGDs. Axes of Discussion Questions (1) Characteristics of Pyrenean cattle breed temperament and comparison with other known breeds - When you talk about the temperament of cattle, what are you referring to? - How would you describe the temperament of the Pyrenean cattle breed? - What differences have you observed between the temperament of the Pyrenean breed and other breeds reared in this region? (2) Anatomical and behavioural indicators of temperament - When you observe an animal, what aspects of its appearance allow you to say something about its temperament? - When you observe or interact with an animal, which of its behaviours allow you to say something about its temperament? (3) Ontogenetic and phylogenetic factors that may influence temperament - When you think back to your cows and bulls, what changes have you detected in their current temperament compared to when they were heifer/steers or calves? - What relationships, if any, have you observed between the temperament of bulls and cows, and that of their offspring? 2.3. Data Analysis A thematic analysis was conducted according to the principles described by Braun and Clarke [ 30 ], in a process that involved both researchers in the FGDs (moderator and assistant). As a first step, all the FGDs were transcribed verbatim. Each FGD was identified (Huesca FGD 1, Navarra FGD 2, Basque Country FGD 3, Teruel FGD 4), and
Animals 2021,11, 82 5 of 18 each participant (P) was assigned a number (P1, P2, etc.). Each of the two researchers read and re-read the whole data set and noted down initial ideas. They then identified each of these ideas with codes (a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language data [ 31 ]) in a systematic fashion across the entire data set, collating data relevant to each code. Next, both researchers discussed their lists of codes, and condensed the two lists into a single one. Codes were grouped into potential themes to facilitate an interpretative analysis of the data on a broader scale. Both codes and themes were identified first within individual focus groups and then compared across groups. A thematic map was generated to check if the themes worked in relation to the coded extracts and the entire data set (Figure 1). Finally, each theme was named and defined, including all the sub-themes associated with them. The three axes of the discussion proposed at the beginning of the study were used to frame the findings obtained during the FGDs. However, to gain a complete picture of how farmers perceived temperament, all additional information that emerged during the discussions were included in the analysis, going beyond both the guiding questions and the definition of temperament that farmers provided at the beginning of each FGD. When using FGD, agreements or disagreements are fundamental processes that influence the nature and content of responses as the group progresses [ 26 ]. Thus, the analysis differentiated, for each of the identified themes, the existence of consensus (pre-existing or built during the discussions) and disagreements. Finally, findings from the thematic analysis were discussed in the light of their coincidences or differences with evidences about livestock temperament coming from behavioural sciences. Animals2021,11,xFORPEERREVIEW5of18 essence‐capturing,and/orevocativeattributeforaportionoflanguagedata[31])inasys‐ tematicfashionacrosstheentiredataset,collatingdatarelevanttoeachcode.Next,both researchersdiscussedtheirlistsofcodes,andcondensedthetwolistsintoasingleone. Codesweregroupedintopotentialthemestofacilitateaninterpretativeanalysisofthe dataonabroaderscale.Bothcodesandthemeswereidentifiedfirstwithinindividual focusgroupsandthencomparedacrossgroups.Athematicmapwasgeneratedtocheck ifthethemesworkedinrelationtothecodedextractsandtheentiredataset(Figure1). Finally,eachthemewasnamedanddefined,includingallthesub‐themesassociatedwith them.Thethreeaxesofthediscussionproposedatthebeginningofthestudywereused toframethefindingsobtainedduringtheFGDs.However,togainacompletepictureof howfarmersperceivedtemperament,alladditionalinformationthatemergedduringthe discussionswereincludedintheanalysis,goingbeyondboththeguidingquestionsand thedefinitionoftemperamentthatfarmersprovidedatthebeginningofeachFGD.When usingFGD,agreementsordisagreementsarefundamentalprocessesthatinfluencethe natureandcontentofresponsesasthegroupprogresses[26].Thus,theanalysisdifferen‐ tiated,foreachoftheidentifiedthemes,theexistenceofconsensus(pre‐existingorbuilt duringthediscussions)anddisagreements.Finally,findingsfromthethematicanalysis werediscussedinthelightoftheircoincidencesordifferenceswithevidencesaboutlive‐ stocktemperamentcomingfrombehaviouralsciences. Figure1.Thematicmapofrespondents’perceptionsabouttemperamentofPyreneancattleinthefourfocusgroups.“De‐ bated”referstoalackofunanimousagreementwithintheFGDsregardingthatissue. 3.Results 3.1.TemperamentofPyreneanCattleBreed 3.1.1.DefinitionofTemperament EachFGDbeganbyaskingparticipantsforadefinitionoftemperament.InallFGDs, thatdefinitionwasrelatedwiththegeneralreactionofanimalstoawiderangeoffear‐ generatingstimuli.Examplesofsuchstimuliwerehumanpresence,handling,otherani‐ mals,unusualsoundsorobjectsinspecificsituations(openinganumbrella).Particularly inFGD4,severalparticipantsalsoperceivedtemperamentasastableconditionofcattle character,definingitas“personality,thestrengthorcharacteroftheanimal;whetherit’s aggressiveornot,whetherit’scalmoragitatedbyhandling”(P1).IntheotherFGDs,ref‐ erencesaboutthepersistentcharacteroftemperamentfocusedonattributesthatwere Figure 1. Thematic map of respondents’ perceptions about temperament of Pyrenean cattle in the four focus groups. “Debated” refers to a lack of unanimous agreement within the FGDs regarding that issue. 3. Results 3.1. Temperament of Pyrenean Cattle Breed 3.1.1. Definition of Temperament Each FGD began by asking participants for a definition of temperament. In all FGDs, that definition was related with the general reaction of animals to a wide range of feargenerating stimuli. Examples of such stimuli were human presence, handling, other animals, unusual sounds or objects in specific situations (opening an umbrella). Particularly in FGD 4, several participants also perceived temperament as a stable condition of cattle
Animals 2021,11, 82 6 of 18 character, defining it as “personality, the strength or character of the animal; whether it’s aggressive or not, whether it’s calm or agitated by handling” (P1). In the other FGDs, references about the persistent character of temperament focused on attributes that were seen to be problematic for handling: “A cow that escapes from an enclosure will always do that, it’s rude once, it’ll always be rude” (FGD 2, P7). In all FDGs, the description of temperament included multiple adjectives or descriptors, and elicited several discussions focused on which were general characteristics for the breed. There was a shared opinion that although the temperament of Pyrenean cattle can be differentiated from other breeds, within the breed “each cow is unique, in a world of its own” (FGD 3, P4). 3.1.2. Describing the Temperament of Pyrenean Cattle Breed When describing the temperament of the Pyrenean cattle, farmers’ discussions focused on temperament traits of the breed and temperament traits observable only in some animals (Figure 2). In terms of the general characteristics of Pyrenean temperament, farmers mentioned adjectives such as “noble” and “docile” to habitual handling carried out by familiar humans and not involving pain. Docility was especially highlighted by participants of FGD 3 and FGD 4, who also defined Pyrenean cattle as very “respectful” of their habitual handler. In their opinion, this would explain apparent dualities in behaviour when interacting with familiar or unfamiliar people. Another consensus (in all FGDs) was that Pyrenean cattle always remain, “attentive”, “alert”, “alive”, “watchful”, or “on guard”. That is, they easily perceive changes in their environment, especially unusual stimuli. Associated with this, participants highlighted the liveliness of the breed, which referred to the animals’ ability to react quickly to negative and positive stimuli that may go unnoticed by other breeds. This capacity was observed by participants in different contexts both on and off the farm, and was considered a positive attribute. Animals2021,11,xFORPEERREVIEW7of18 Figure2.IndepthdescriptionofPyreneancattletemperamentaccordingtofarmers’perceptions.“Debated”referstoa lackofunanimousagreementwithintheFGDsregardingthatissue. AnotherdescriptorusedintheFGDswas“strongtemperament”.Someparticipants describeditasasynonymfor“nervous”,focusingonthestrengthofthemovementsof fearfuloravoideranimals,whileothersreferredtocattlewith“moretemperament”that standupanddonotstepawayfromhumans:“AfarmerfriendusedtosaythatthePyre‐ neancowhadthatgaze,andthatpeoplelookedatitandsaid,“itseemsquiteimposing”. No,thePyreneancowstaresatyouthatwaysinceithasnothingtobeembarrassedabout” (FGD1,P5).InFGD3therewasadisagreementaboutwhethera“strong”characterwas ageneralconditionofthebreedbecausesomefarmersrelatedthattermwithhaving“bad manners”(rudedisposition).Additionally,therewasanagreementinallfocusgroups thatadjectivessuchas“strong”,“nervous”,“onguard”werenotrelatedtoaggressive‐ ness.Onthecontrary,allparticipantspointedoutthataggressivenesswasanexceptional condition(1%to2%oftheanimals),andthataggressivebehaviourtendedtobeobserved inspecificsituationsrelatedwithreproduction(thetemperamentofbullsasaresponseto femalesinheat,orperipartumdaysincows). InFGD1,FGD3,andFGD4,severaldiscussionsaroseabouttherelationshipbetween thebreed’scapacitytosurviveandreproducewithouthumanhelp(adjectiveslike “braver”,“livelier”)andthoserelatedtotherapiddetectionandfearreactioneventoin‐ conspicuousgeneratingstimuli(adjectiveslike“alert”,“onguard”,“strong”,“nervous”). Somefarmersmentionedthatthe“strong”temperamentofthisbreedcanbeanadvantage forsurvival,specificallytoprotectoffspringfrompredators.Othersrelatedan“alert”or “onguard”temperamenttoagreaterprobabilityofsurvivalunderextensivemountain grazingconditions.Thiswasrelatedtotheopinionthatthefrequencyofhandlingand artificialselectionreducestheaforementionedattributes,althoughtheymayimprovedo‐ cility.Otherfarmers,incontrast,pointedoutthatitispossibletoselectforanimalsthat combinebothconditions,asnervousness(orfearfulness)isdifferentfromthecapacityto surviveandreproducewithouthumanhelp.Infact,theysuggestedthatamorenervous temperamentcouldforceananimaltoremain“hiddeninthebushes”andnotgainweight. Figure 2. In depth description of Pyrenean cattle temperament according to farmers’ perceptions. “Debated” refers to a lack of unanimous agreement within the FGDs regarding that issue.
Animals 2021,11, 82 7 of 18 While mentioning the above, participants also highlighted the breed’s ability to survive and adapt to changing environmental conditions. This is especially evident when grazing in open lands without human supervision, where Pyrenean cattle are more adapted (than other breeds) to; (i) find the best pastures, (ii) take advantage of poor pastures, (iii) orient themselves and climb the most rugged mountain areas, (iv) give birth in the mountains, care for calves, and flee or face potential calf predators. In this regard, participants described Pyrenean cattle as “braver”, “livelier”, “fiercer” or “smarter” than other breeds. The above temperaments had also been observed in circumstances other than grazing. For example, a participant of FGD 4 pointed out that the Pyrenean cow “is more aware that I’m going to feed her, or pick up the calves, or whatever. She realizes these things are happening before any other cross-breed or pure breed” (P7). However, particularly linked to the “alert” adjective, some participants in all FGDs also mentioned the existence of temperament descriptors such as “avoider”, “nervous” or “fearful”. Those terms were used to refer to animals whose flight behaviour is unusually frequent, reactive, fast, and accompanied by a lot of movement. These descriptors were mentioned more frequently in FGD 1, where some participants related them to a general condition: “For me the temperament of this breed, although you can also see it in other breeds, but more in the Pyrenean breed, is that despite being very docile, at a specific moment, due to some action, it reacts in a way that tends to be . . . that it reacts very quickly and strongly, very savagely” (P3). In this FGD, some participants reported unexpected situations that, in their opinion, caused exaggerated and unjustified flight reactions in their animals. These include, for example, the opening of an umbrella in a stable, a strange sound or a sudden movement by the owner (bending over). The above observations contrast with the other FGDs where participants argued that those temperament descriptors were not generalizable and that the same traits could be found in any breed. One cattle farmer in FGD 4 suggested, as a possible explanation to the sudden or exaggerated cattle movements, that “due to its shape, its makeup, its agility, it appears to make more sudden movements” (P6). Another descriptor used in the FGDs was “strong temperament”. Some participants described it as a synonym for “nervous”, focusing on the strength of the movements of fearful or avoider animals, while others referred to cattle with “more temperament” that stand up and do not step away from humans: “A farmer friend used to say that the Pyrenean cow had that gaze, and that people looked at it and said, “it seems quite imposing”. No, the Pyrenean cow stares at you that way since it has nothing to be embarrassed about” (FGD 1, P5). In FGD 3 there was a disagreement about whether a “strong” character was a general condition of the breed because some farmers related that term with having “bad manners” (rude disposition). Additionally, there was an agreement in all focus groups that adjectives such as “strong”, “nervous”, “on guard” were not related to aggressiveness. On the contrary, all participants pointed out that aggressiveness was an exceptional condition (1% to 2% of the animals), and that aggressive behaviour tended to be observed in specific situations related with reproduction (the temperament of bulls as a response to females in heat, or peripartum days in cows). In FGD 1, FGD3, and FGD 4, several discussions arose about the relationship between the breed’s capacity to survive and reproduce without human help (adjectives like “braver”, “livelier”) and those related to the rapid detection and fear reaction even to inconspicuous generating stimuli (adjectives like “alert”, “on guard”, “strong”, “nervous”). Some farmers mentioned that the “strong” temperament of this breed can be an advantage for survival, specifically to protect offspring from predators. Others related an “alert” or “on guard” temperament to a greater probability of survival under extensive mountain grazing conditions. This was related to the opinion that the frequency of handling and artificial selection reduces the aforementioned attributes, although they may improve docility. Other farmers, in contrast, pointed out that it is possible to select for animals that combine both conditions, as nervousness (or fearfulness) is different from the capacity to survive and reproduce without human help. In fact, they suggested that a more nervous temperament could force an animal to remain “hidden in the bushes” and not gain weight.
Animals 2021,11, 82 8 of 18 3.1.3. Comparison with Other Breeds To place temperament within a broader context, participants were asked to compare Pyrenean cattle to other breeds. Farmers were familiar with Parda de Montaña, Holstein, Limousin, Blonde d’Aquitaine and Gascon breeds. With the exception of Parda de Montaña, allusions to other breeds tended to highlight the positive aspects of the temperament of Pyrenean cattle. Farmers expressed that there is a generalized idea that Parda de Montaña was more docile. However, while FGD 1 were in agreement with this idea, only some participants in the other FGDs were. According to some opinions, the management of the Parda de Montaña is less extensive, and they have more contact with humans, which could explain these differences. Additionally, in all FGDs some farmers brought up their own or third-party experiences related to truck loading or vaccination, in which Parda animals were nervous and even aggressive. These experiences were used to explain that such behaviour may be similar in all breeds in stressful situations, so that the differences between Pyrenean and Parda breeds could just be a matter of reputation or lack of knowledge. Regarding the other breeds, most farmers focused on their negative temperament characteristics. Holstein cattle was suggested to have a “tricky” or “unpredictable” temperament. Limousin and Gascon were described as stronger and more fearful than Pyrenean cattle, as well as Blond d’ Aquitaine. Hence, in all the FGDs, this debate helped to reinforce the idea that Pyrenean cattle had a non-aggressive temperament. 3.2. Ontogenetic and Phylogenetic Factors That May Influence Temperament When asked about the role of genetics, age, and sex in temperament, farmers agreed that these factors can make an animal’s temperament different from another. Additionally, sensory acuity of Pyrenean cattle emerged consistently as a new theme in all FGDs, being mentioned as a factor that can influence the way animals perceive stimuli (Figure 3). Animals2021,11,xFORPEERREVIEW8of18 3.1.3.ComparisonwithOtherBreeds Toplacetemperamentwithinabroadercontext,participantswereaskedtocompare Pyreneancattletootherbreeds.FarmerswerefamiliarwithPardadeMontaña,Holstein, Limousin,Blonded’AquitaineandGasconbreeds.WiththeexceptionofPardadeMon‐ taña,allusionstootherbreedstendedtohighlightthepositiveaspectsofthetemperament ofPyreneancattle.FarmersexpressedthatthereisageneralizedideathatPardadeMon‐ tañawasmoredocile.However,whileFGD1wereinagreementwiththisidea,onlysome participantsintheotherFGDswere.Accordingtosomeopinions,themanagementofthe PardadeMontañaislessextensive,andtheyhavemorecontactwithhumans,which couldexplainthesedifferences.Additionally,inallFGDssomefarmersbroughtuptheir ownorthird‐partyexperiencesrelatedtotruckloadingorvaccination,inwhichParda animalswerenervousandevenaggressive.Theseexperienceswereusedtoexplainthat suchbehaviourmaybesimilarinallbreedsinstressfulsituations,sothatthedifferences betweenPyreneanandPardabreedscouldjustbeamatterofreputationorlackof knowledge.Regardingtheotherbreeds,mostfarmersfocusedontheirnegativetemper‐ amentcharacteristics.Holsteincattlewassuggestedtohavea“tricky”or“unpredictable” temperament.LimousinandGasconweredescribedasstrongerandmorefearfulthan Pyreneancattle,aswellasBlondd’Aquitaine.Hence,inalltheFGDs,thisdebatehelped toreinforcetheideathatPyreneancattlehadanon‐aggressivetemperament. 3.2.OntogeneticandPhylogeneticFactorsThatMayInfluenceTemperament Whenaskedabouttheroleofgenetics,age,andsexintemperament,farmersagreed thatthesefactorscanmakeananimal’stemperamentdifferentfromanother.Addition‐ ally,sensoryacuityofPyreneancattleemergedconsistentlyasanewthemeinallFGDs, beingmentionedasafactorthatcaninfluencethewayanimalsperceivestimuli(Figure 3). Figure3.Descriptionofontogeneticandphylogeneticfactorsthatinfluencetemperamentaccordingtofarmers’percep‐ tions.“Debated”referstoalackofunanimousagreementwithintheFGDsregardingthatissue. Figure 3. Description of ontogenetic and phylogenetic factors that influence temperament according to farmers’ perceptions. “Debated” refers to a lack of unanimous agreement within the FGDs regarding that issue. 3.2.1. Genetics There was a general consensus that the temperament of parents can be reflected in their offspring. However, there was some disagreement about the degree of this effect, since some participants observed variable effects from the bull or cow parent. Farmers in all FGDs highlighted the heritability of the bull’s temperament in its offspring using explanations like: (i) “if the bull is fearful, the calves are fearful” (FGD 2); (ii) “now we have
Animals 2021,11, 82 9 of 18 noticed that, thanks to genetic selection of the bulls, the temperament of the daughters is much better than their mothers” (FGD 4). One participant from FGD 3 suggested a possible explanation for this: “one bull produces many daughters over a short period of time; the bull is the father of all of them and you can relate them to one another, while cows do not have that many daughters” (P5). Most farmers also recognized that cows also affect calf temperament but that it goes beyond genetics, due to the strong cow-calf bond during the first months postpartum. They explained that during this period “if the cow walks, the calf walks, it’s always like that” (FGD 4, P5), while the calf “hardly knows the father” (FGD 3, P7). They explained that the calves observe and learn how their mothers react to stimuli. In the opinion of some participants, that means that the mother can have a greater influence on calf temperament than the bull, especially when calves are born in the mountains and remain isolated with their mother for several months, without human contact. 3.2.2. Age and Sex Farmers in all FDGs agreed that temperament evolves differently in females and males, with the former being more reactive during their first years of life and becoming increasingly docile with age. As stated by a farmer from FGD 1 “...and then there are some that are bitter their whole lives, but when they turn three they become more grateful. But those first three years, well! I have one that jumped through window years ago, but now follows behind me as calm as can be” (FGD 1, P2). However, they also acknowledged that there can be a few “problematic” animals, whose nervous or reactive temperament is consistent throughout their lifetime. There was some disagreement about when the relatively higher reactivity in cows (two or three years before the first calving) changed towards greater docility, varying from (i) the time of the first calving (two or three years old; FDG 1 and 2); (ii) five or seven years old (FGD 2), and (iii) the third or fourth calving (FGD 3 and 4). The first days after calving were thought to be special risk moments since even the most docile females could become aggressive towards human handlers for 3 to 4 days postpartum, or sometimes even for several weeks. Regarding breeding bulls, they were thought to be docile during their first year of life and either remain so or become stronger and even aggressive as they aged. FGD 1 commented on both types of cases but, as other FGDs, recognized that their temperament usually became stronger with age. As with cows there as some disagreement about when bulls may become stronger, either starting around age three, or later. One participant explained: “a two or three-year old bull, up until about five years, if he has not done anything to you, normally will remain noble forever. But if after turning three he’s had some ugly behaviour, watch out because one day he’ll go after you. The bull is the most dangerous animal in the herd.” (FGD 4, P7). All FGDs agreed that cows over five years old are usually more docile than bulls, while the latter can become more aggressive in the presence of cows, acknowledging the influence of hormones in bulls. Some farmers in FGD 4 mentioned that breeding bulls may not actually be more aggressive than cows, but it can appear so since they are much bigger. Overall, bulls were also described as “resentful” or “spiteful”, referring to their ability to remember past negative experiences (painful treatment, abuse) and behave aggressively towards specific handlers even weeks or months after the event. 3.2.3. Sensory Acuity The visual, auditory and olfactory acuity of Pyrenean cattle breed were highlighted in all FGDs: “ . . . and you have to pay attention to their ears, she already knows that I’ve arrived, even though she hasn’t seen me. Or, even if they are all lying down, if there are 20 cows and three look to one side, the other 17 will follow suit and will notice something. And you have not noticed anything, you haven’t seen or heard a thing. And smell, they can smell anything. It’s a truly special cow.” (Navarra). A farmer in FGD 3 also mentioned that cows that cannot see well tend to be more fearful, pointing to a possible relationship between temperament and sensory acuity. All FGDs agreed that the breed has high hearing
Animals 2021,11, 82 16 of 18 11. Olmos, G.; Turner, S.P. The Relationships between Temperament during Routine Handling Tasks, Weight Gain and Facial Hair Whorl Position in Frequently Handled Beef Cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008,115, 25–36. [CrossRef] 12. Hemsworth, P.H. Human–Animal Interactions in Livestock Production. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003,81, 185–198. [CrossRef] 13. Adler, F.; Christley, R.; Campe, A. Invited Review: Examining Farmers’ Personalities and Attitudes as Possible Risk Factors for Dairy Cattle Health, Welfare, Productivity, and Farm Management: A Systematic Scoping Review. J. Dairy Sci. 2019 ,102, 3805–3824. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Ceballos, M.C.; Sant’Anna, A.C.; Boivin, X.; de Costa, F.O.; de Carvalhal, M.V.L.; Paranhos da Costa, M.J.R. Impact of Good Practices of Handling Training on Beef Cattle Welfare and Stockpeople Attitudes and Behaviors. Livest. Sci. 2018 ,216, 24– 31. [CrossRef] 15. Stephansen, R.S.; Fogh, A.; Norberg, E. Genetic Parameters for Handling and Milking Temperament in Danish First-Parity Holstein Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2018,101, 11033–11039. [CrossRef] 16. Pastorino, G.; Faustini, M.; Vitali, F.; Mazzola, S.; Curone, G. What Are We Losing? Are the Personality Traits of Italian Autochthonous Cows Different from Those of Cosmopolitan Breeds? J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 2018,5, 315. [CrossRef] 17. Sumner, C.L.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Canadian Dairy Cattle Veterinarian Perspectives on Calf Welfare. J. Dairy Sci. 2018 ,101, 10303–10316. [CrossRef] 18. Ventura, B.A.; Weary, D.M.; Giovanetti, A.S.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Veterinary Perspectives on Cattle Welfare Challenges and Solutions. Livest. Sci. 2016,193, 95–102. [CrossRef] 19. Kling-Eveillard, F.; Knierim, U.; Irrgang, N.; Gottardo, F.; Ricci, R.; Dockès, A.C. Attitudes of Farmers towards Cattle Dehorning. Livest. Sci. 2015,179, 12–21. [CrossRef] 20. Holloway, L. Smallholder Knowledge-Practices and Smallholding Animals: Threats or Alternatives to Agricultural Biosecurity? J. Rural. Stud. 2019,69, 19–29. [CrossRef] 21. Croyle, S.L.; Belage, E.; Khosa, D.K.; LeBlanc, S.J.; Haley, D.B.; Kelton, D.F. Dairy Farmers’ Expectations and Receptivity Regarding Animal Welfare Advice: A Focus Group Study. J. Dairy Sci. 2019,102, 7385–7397. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 22. Fischer, K.; Schulz, K.; Chenais, E. “Can We Agree on That”? Plurality, Power and Language in Participatory Research. Prev. Vet. Med. 2020,180. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 23. Aranguren, F. La Raza Pirenáica. El vacuno autóctono de Navarra; ASPINA, Gobierno de Navarra, ITG-Ganadero: Navarra, España, 2012. 24. Belzunegui, T.E.; Asarta, A. El ganado vacuno de raza Pirenaica en Navarra. Pastos Rev. Soc. Española Estud. Pastos 1976 ,6, 213–234. 25. CONASPI. Anuario 2019; CONASPI: Navarra, Spain; p. 65. 26. Wibeck, V.; Dahlgren, M.A.; Öberg, G. Learning in Focus Groups: An Analytical Dimension for Enhancing Focus Group Research. Qual. Res. 2016,7, 249–267. [CrossRef] 27. Jakobsen, H. Focus Groups and Methodological Rigour Outside the Minority World: Making the Method Work to Its Strengths in Tanzania. Qual. Res. 2012. [CrossRef] 28. Krueger, R.A.; Casey, M.A. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 5th ed.; SAGE Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-1-4833-6523-7. 29. Kidd, P.S.; Parshall, M.B. Getting the Focus and the Group: Enhancing Analytical Rigor in Focus Group Research. Qual. Health Res. 2016. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 30. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006,3, 77–101. [CrossRef] 31. Linneberg, M.S.; Korsgaard, S. Coding Qualitative Data: A Synthesis Guiding the Novice. Qual. Res. J. 2019. [CrossRef] 32. Forkman, B.; Boissy, A.; Meunier-Salaün, M.-C.; Canali, E.; Jones, R.B. A Critical Review of Fear Tests Used on Cattle, Pigs, Sheep, Poultry and Horses. Physiol. Behav. 2007,92, 340–374. [CrossRef] 33. Stockman, C.A.; Collins, T.; Barnes, A.L.; Miller, D.; Wickham, S.L.; Verbeek, E.; Matthews, L.; Ferguson, D.; Wemelsfelder, F.; Fleming, P.A. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of the Motivation for Feed in Sheep in Response to Altered Body Condition Score. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2014,54, 922–929. [CrossRef] 34. Sant’Anna, A.C.; Paranhos da Costa, M.J.R. Validity and Feasibility of Qualitative Behavior Assessment for the Evaluation of Nellore Cattle Temperament. Livest. Sci. 2013,157, 254–262. [CrossRef] 35. Zeller, U.; Göttert, T. The Relations between Evolution and Domestication Reconsidered—Implications for Systematics, Ecology, and Nature Conservation. Glob. Ecol. Cons. 2019,20, e00756. [CrossRef] 36. Marçal-Pedroza, M.G.; Campos, M.M.; Pereira, L.G.R.; Machado, F.S.; Tomich, T.R.; Paranhos da Costa, M.J.R.; Sant’Anna, A.C. Consistency of Temperament Traits and Their Relationships with Milk Yield in Lactating Primiparous F1 Holstein—Gyr Cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2020,222, 104881. [CrossRef] 37. Wiener, P. Genetics of Behaviour in Cattle. In The Genetics of Cattle, 2nd ed.; Garrick, D., Ruvinsky, A., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK; pp. 234–259. 38. Peña, F.; Avilés, C.; Domenech, V.; González, A.; Martínez, A.; Molina, A. Effects of Stress by Unfamiliar Sounds on Carcass and Meat Traits in Bulls from Three Continental Beef Cattle Breeds at Different Ageing Times. Meat. Sci. 2014 ,98, 718–725. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 39. Parham, J.T.; Tanner, A.E.; Barkley, K.; Pullen, L.; Wahlberg, M.L.; Swecker, W.S.; Lewis, R.M. Temperamental Cattle Acclimate More Substantially to Repeated Handling. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019,212, 36–43. [CrossRef]
Animals 2021,11, 82 17 of 18 40. Vogt, A.; Aditia, E.L.; Schlechter, I.; Schütze, S.; Geburt, K.; Gauly, M.; König von Borstel, U. Interand Intra-Observer Reliability of Different Methods for Recording Temperament in Beef and Dairy Calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017 ,195, 15–23. [CrossRef] 41. Bebe, B.O.; Udo, H.M.J.; Rowlands, G.J.; Thorpe, W. Smallholder Dairy Systems in the Kenya Highlands: Breed Preferences and Breeding Practices. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2003,82, 117–127. [CrossRef] 42. Morgan-Davies, J.; Morgan-Davies, C.; Pollock, M.L.; Holland, J.P.; Waterhouse, A. Characterisation of Extensive Beef Cattle Systems: Disparities between Opinions, Practice and Policy. Land Use Policy 2014,38, 707–718. [CrossRef] 43. Friggens, N.C.; Blanc, F.; Berry, D.P.; Puillet, L. Review: Deciphering Animal Robustness. A Synthesis to Facilitate Its Use in Livestock Breeding and Management. Animal 2017,11, 2237–2251. [CrossRef] 44. Baena, M.M.; Costa, A.C.; Vieira, G.R.; Rocha, R.D.F.B.; Ribeiro, A.R.B.; Ibelli, A.M.G.; Meirelles, S.L.C. Heat Tolerance Responses in a Bos Taurus Cattle Herd Raised in a Brazilian Climate. J. Therm. Biol. 2019,81, 162–169. [CrossRef] 45. Shabtay, A. Adaptive Traits of Indigenous Cattle Breeds: The Mediterranean Baladi as a Case Study. Meat. Sci. 2015 ,109, 27–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 46. Guintard, C.; Denis, B. Notion de rusticitéchez le bovins: Cas particulier de l’Aurochs-reconstitué.Ethnozootechnie 2013 ,94, 19–29. 47. Geburt, K.; Friedrich, M.; Piechotta, M.; Gauly, M.; König von Borstel, U. Validity of Physiological Biomarkers for Maternal Behavior in Cows—A Comparison of Beef and Dairy Cattle. Physiol. Behav. 2015,139, 361–368. [CrossRef] 48. Hidano, A.; Gates, M.C. Why Sold, Not Culled? Analysing Farm and Animal Characteristics Associated with Livestock Selling Practices. Prev. Vet. Med. 2019,166, 65–77. [CrossRef] 49. Tõzsér, J.; Maros, K.; Szentléleki, A.; Zándoki, R.; Nikodémusz, E.; Balázs, F.; Bailo, A.; Alföldi, L. Evaluation of Temperament in Cows of Different Age and Bulls of Different Colour Variety. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2003,48, 344–348. 50. Probst, J.K.; Hillmann, E.; Leiber, F.; Kreuzer, M.; Spengler Neff, A. Influence of Gentle Touching Applied Few Weeks before Slaughter on Avoidance Distance and Slaughter Stress in Finishing Cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013,144, 14–21. [CrossRef] 51. Neave, H.W.; Costa, J.H.C.; Weary, D.M.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Long-Term Consistency of Personality Traits of Cattle. Roy. Soc. Open. Sci. 2020,7, 191849. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 52. Gibbons, J.M.; Lawrence, A.B.; Haskell, M.J. Consistency of Aggressive Feeding Behaviour in Dairy Cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009,121, 1–7. [CrossRef] 53. Goodman, L.E.; Cibils, A.F.; Wesley, R.L.; Mulliniks, J.T.; Petersen, M.K.; Scholljegerdes, E.J.; Cox, S.H. Temperament Affects Rangeland Use Patterns and Reproductive Performance of Beef Cows. Rangelands 2016,38, 292–296. [CrossRef] 54. Turner, S.P.; Lawrence, A.B. Relationship between Maternal Defensive Aggression, Fear of Handling and Other Maternal Care Traits in Beef Cows. Livest. Sci. 2007,106, 182–188. [CrossRef] 55. Orihuela, A.; Pérez-Torres, L.; Ungerfeld, R. The Time Relative to Parturition Does Not Affect the Behavioral or Aggressive Reactions in Zebu Cows (Bos Indicus). Livest. Sci. 2020,234, 103978. [CrossRef] 56. Flörcke, C.; Engle, T.E.; Grandin, T.; Deesing, M.J. Individual Differences in Calf Defence Patterns in Red Angus Beef Cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012,139, 203–208. [CrossRef] 57. Lanier, J.L.; Grandin, T.; Green, R.; Avery, D.; McGee, K. A Note on Hair Whorl Position and Cattle Temperament in the Auction Ring. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001,73, 93–101. [CrossRef] 58. Goya López, M. Del Ganado vacuno de Guipuzcoa. Boletín Oficial del Ministerio de Fomento. Tomo XXIII. 1857, pp. 454–466. Available online: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5323393306&view=1up&seq=601 (accessed on 10 October 2020). 59. Lecorps, B.; Ludwig, B.R.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Weary, D.M. Pain-Induced Pessimism and Anhedonia: Evidence From a Novel Probability-Based Judgment Bias Test. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2019,13, 1–6. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 60. Reiche, A.-M.; Dohme-Meier, F.; Claudia Terlouw, E.M. Effects of Horn Status on Behaviour in Fattening Cattle in the Field and during Reactivity Tests. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2020,231, 105081. [CrossRef] 61. Lutz, J.; Burla, J.-B.; Gygax, L.; Wechsler, B.; Würbel, H.; Friedli, K. Horned and Dehorned Dairy Cows Differ in the Pattern of Agonistic Interactions Investigated under Different Space Allowances. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019,218, 104819. [CrossRef] 62. Knierim, U.; Irrgang, N.; Roth, B.A. To Be or Not to Be Horned—Consequences in Cattle. Livest. Sci. 2015 ,179, 29–37. [CrossRef] 63. Solano, J.; Galindo, F.; Orihuela, A.; Galina, C.S. The Effect of Social Rank on the Physiological Response during Repeated Stressful Handling in Zebu Cattle (Bos Indicus). Physiol. Behav. 2004,82, 679–683. [CrossRef] 64. Beauchamp, G. Animal Vigilance: Monitoring Predators and Competitors; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-012-801994-8. 65. Welp, T.; Rushen, J.; Kramer, D.L.; Festa-Bianchet, M.; de Passillé, A.M.B. Vigilance as a Measure of Fear in Dairy Cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004,87, 1–13. [CrossRef] 66. Core, S.; Widowski, T.; Mason, G.; Miller, S. Eye White Percentage as a Predictor of Temperament in Beef Cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2009 , 87, 2168–2174. [CrossRef] 67. Proctor, H.S.; Carder, G. Measuring Positive Emotions in Cows: Do Visible Eye Whites Tell Us Anything? Physiol. Behav. 2015 , 147, 1–6. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 68. Gómez, Y.; Bieler, R.; Hankele, A.K.; Zähner, M.; Savary, P.; Hillmann, E. Evaluation of Visible Eye White and Maximum Eye Temperature as Non-Invasive Indicators of Stress in Dairy Cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018,198, 1–8. [CrossRef] 69. Leliveld, L.M.C. From Science to Practice: A Review of Laterality Research on Ungulate Livestock. Symmetry 2019 ,11, 1157. [CrossRef] 70. Müller, B.R.; Soriano, V.S.; Bellio, J.C.B.; Molento, C.F.M. Facial Expression of Pain in Nellore and Crossbred Beef Cattle. J. Vet. Behav. 2019,34, 60–65. [CrossRef]
Animals 2021,11, 82 18 of 18 71. Adamczyk, K.; Górecka-Bruzda, A.; Nowicki, J.; Gumułka, M.; Molik, E.; Schwarz, T.; Earley, B.; Klocek, C. Perception of Environment in Farm Animals—A Review. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2015,15, 565–589. [CrossRef] 72. Hirata, M.; Arimoto, C.; Hattori, N.; Anzai, H. Can Cattle Visually Discriminate between Green and Dead Forages at a Short Distance While Moving in the Field? Anim. Cogn. 2019,22, 707–718. [CrossRef] 73. Lansade, L.; Pichard, G.; Leconte, M. Sensory Sensitivities: Components of a Horse’s Temperament Dimension. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008,114, 534–553. [CrossRef] 74. Echeverría, T.; Asarta, A. El ganado vacuno de caza Pirenaica en Navarra. Pastos 2011,6, 213–234. 75. Laffitte, V. La Raza Bovina Pirenaica; Comisión de Agricultura de la Diputación de Guipúzcoa; Imprenta de la Diputación de Guipúzcoa: San Sebastián, Spain, 1926. 76. Staffe, A. Contribuciones a La Monografía Del Ganado Vacuno Vasco. Rev. Int. Estud. Vascos 1926,Tomo XVII, 201–259. 77. Blanco, M.; Casasús, I.; Palacio, J. Effect of Age at Weaning on the Physiological Stress Response and Temperament of Two Beef Cattle Breeds. Animal 2009,3, 108–117. [CrossRef]