Search

Gentle handling seems to elicit positive states in sheep. The study investigated whether spatial distance alters sheep responses to brushing and whether spatial distance is influenced by reactivity. Twenty Romane ewes were assessed in three sessions: in Sessions 1 and 3, one grid separated the test animal from pen mates, with no distance between them, and in Session 2 two grids separated the test animal from pen mates by a distance of about 1.7 m. Ewes had been genetically selected for low (R−) or high (R+) behavioural reactivity to social isolation. Body postures, head orientation, ear postures, closed and half-closed eyes, tail wagging and feeding behaviour, in addition to heart rate (HR) and HR variability, as the root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD), standard deviation of all normal-to-normal (NN) intervals (SDNN), RMSSD/SDNN ratio and ratio between low-frequency (LF) and high-frequency (HF) powers (LF/HF) were assessed. Data were analysed using generalized linear models and linear mixed models. Session, genetic line and phase (pre-, brushing and post-brushing) were considered fixed effects. Increased distance in Session 2 might not have influenced ewes’ responses. Fewer changes in ear postures were noted in Session 3 than 1 (P

Gentle handling seems to elicit positive states in sheep. The study investigated whether spatial distance alters sheep responses to brushing and whether spatial distance is influenced by reactivity. Twenty Romane ewes were assessed in three sessions: in Sessions 1 and 3, one grid separated the test animal from pen mates, with no distance between them, and in Session 2 two grids separated the test animal from pen mates by a distance of about 1.7 m. Ewes had been genetically selected for low (R−) or high (R+) behavioural reactivity to social isolation. Body postures, head orientation, ear postures, closed and half-closed eyes, tail wagging and feeding behaviour, in addition to heart rate (HR) and HR variability, as the root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD), standard deviation of all normal-to-normal (NN) intervals (SDNN), RMSSD/SDNN ratio and ratio between low-frequency (LF) and high-frequency (HF) powers (LF/HF) were assessed. Data were analysed using generalized linear models and linear mixed models. Session, genetic line and phase (pre-, brushing and post-brushing) were considered fixed effects. Increased distance in Session 2 might not have influenced ewes' responses. Fewer changes in ear postures were noted in Session 3 than 1 (P<0.01), suggesting that ewes were more relaxed in Session 3. The RMSSD/SDNN ratio was higher mainly during brushing in Sessions 1 and 3 (P<0.05), indicating that ewes were more relaxed during brushing, and at no distance between pen mates. However, spatial distance influenced R− and R+ ewes' responses; R+ ewes performed more asymmetric ear postures in Session 2 than 1 and 3 (P<0.01), and in Session 3 than 1 (P<0.01), indicating that spatial distance had a negative effect on R+ ewes. Low reactive ewes spent less time on horizontal ear postures in Session 2 than 1 and 3 (P<0.01), and R+ ewes spent more time on horizontal postures in Session 1 than 3 (P<0.01). Curiously, R− ewes spent more time eating and ruminating in Session 3 than 1 (P<0.01), and in Session 2 than 1 and 3 (P<0.01), whereas R+ ewes ate and ruminated more in Session 1 than 3 (P<0.05). Higher HR was found among R− ewes in Session 2 than 1 and 3, and in Session 3 than 1 (P<0.01). High reactive ewes showed higher HR in Session 1 than 3 (P<0.01). The findings suggest that the social context might influence sheep responses to gentle handling, and the effects depend on their reactivity traits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accessible Summary Pupils with autism are often physically handled in schools without teachers realising that this can be distressing for them., Many teachers do not know about the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities., Teachers need support with developing their understanding of how pupils experience being handled., It is important that the rights of disabled pupils are recognised and protected., Summary 'Positive handling' has become a popular intervention within education and other services in England in the management of behaviours that challenge. This paper uses a vignette of an observation of the handling of children with autism as a starting point for consideration of whether this practice can ever really be experienced as positive or whether it is often little more than a mechanism of control that disregards the rights of disabled children and young people. All schools are mandated under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to protect the rights of disabled pupils, but, to date, there has been very little engagement by teachers with this agenda. This paper identifies some of the rights of pupils that are negated through current practice and evaluates what support Prouty's principles of pre-therapy from the field of counselling might offer teachers with developing a rights based agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Fifty-two sows were subjected to a human approach test (HAT) at 2 weeks, and again at 3–4 days, before expected farrowing. Latency to contact and time spent exploring the experimenter, and overall confidence score (1=low to 6=high) were recorded. Fifty percentage of the sows received positive handling for 1min twice daily, 5 days a week from first HAT to farrowing, whilst the others were controls without additional handling. Behaviour was video-recorded from 2 days before until 4 days after farrowing. In the first HAT, 37% of sows immediately made contact with the experimenter (score 6), whereas 20% withdrew (scores 1 and 2). To give the sows a positive association to the handler, feed rewards were given. The sows accepted a feed nut from the hand significantly sooner than petting (P =0.05). After 2 weeks of handling, the confidence score had increased significantly (P <0.001), but a similar tendency occurred for controls (P =0.06). For the most fearful sows (scores 1 and 2), the handling procedure resulted in a major increase in confidence score (P <0.001). There were no significant differences in piglet mortality or early lactation piglet weight gain between treatments. In the control group, sows with a high (6) initial confidence score tended to have shorter farrowing duration than sows with a low (1 or 2) initial confidence score (P =0.07). For sows with a low initial confidence score, the positive handling resulted in a shorter farrowing duration, but the effect was not significant. In the last 8h before farrowing, positively handled sows also tended to rest more than sows in the control group. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]