This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
HUMAN–LIVESTOCK INTERACTIONS, SECOND EDITION
The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals
This book is dedicated to the late John Barnett, our friend and colleague, who contributed so much to our research and to animal welfare research in general.
HUMAN–LIVESTOCK INTERACTIONS, SECOND EDITION
The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals
Paul H. Hemsworth
Animal Welfare Science Centre University of Melbourne and Department of Primary Industries Australia and
Grahame J. Coleman
Animal Welfare Science Centre Monash University Australia
Animal welfare. Chippenham.9636–dc22 2010022610 ISBN-13: 978 1 84593 673 0 Commissioning editor: Rachel Cutts Production editor: Shankari Wilford Typeset by AMA Dataset. .org CABI North American Ofﬁce 875 Massachusetts Avenue 7th Floor Cambridge. MA 02139 USA Tel: +1 617 395 4056 Fax: +1 617 354 6875 E-mail: cabi-nao@cabi. Human–livestock interactions : the stockperson and the productivity and welfare of intensively farmed animals / Paul H. p. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hemsworth. cm. paper) 1. – 2nd ed. London. Includes bibliographical references and index. Grahame J. Paul H. Title.cabi. Livestock–Research–Moral and ethical aspects. electronically. UK. II. HV4757. Preston. recording or otherwise. Coleman. UK. 3. Coleman. ISBN 978-1-84593-673-0 (alk.H46 2011 174'.org © CAB International 2011. mechanically. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means. UK.org Website: www. Hemsworth and Grahame J. without the prior permission of the copyright owners. Printed and bound in the UK by CPI Antony Rowe.CABI is a trading name of CAB International CABI Head Ofﬁce Nosworthy Way Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8DE UK Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 E-mail: cabi@cabi. Animal industry–Moral and ethical aspects. I. by photocopying. 2. All rights reserved.
Issues and Implications Human–Animal Interactions and Animal Productivity and Welfare Attitudes of Stockpeople Stockperson Behaviour and Animal Behaviour A Model of Stockperson–Animal Interactions and their Implications for Livestock Changing Stockperson Attitudes and Behaviour Conclusion: Current and Future Opportunities to Improve Human–Animal Interactions in Livestock Production vii 1 21 2 3 47 84 103 4 5 6 120 135 153 169 189 7 8 References Index v .Contents Preface 1 Introduction: the Stockperson as a Professional – Skills. Knowledge and Status Farm Animal Welfare: Assessment.
This page intentionally left blank .
Our studies and those by M. These problems were exacerbated by the lack of interest shown by psychologists in this important area. These early studies stimulated subsequent research in the 1980s and 1990s on the human characteristics responsible for these effects.Preface Human–livestock interactions are the topic of this book because there is an ever-increasing body of evidence which demonstrates that these interactions may result in profound behavioural and physiological changes in the animal. physiology and productivity.B. Seabrook in the late 1970s and early 1980s on the implications of human–animal interactions for farm animals and studies by W. housing. genetics. may be affected with implications for the job performance and career prospects of the stockperson. The study of stockperson characteristics in livestock production creates a number of problems that are generally not encountered when studying other more traditional areas of livestock production. However. (ii) control others not under direct study. with consequences on the animal’s performance and welfare. and (iii) study humans in commercial situations. there was an emerging appreciation of the inﬂuence of the stockperson on the productivity of livestock. The early research on human–livestock relationships was initially conducted because of its implications for farm animal productivity. with the ever-increasing interest in animal welfare and a better appreciation vii . Gross and P Siegel on the implications of human–animal interactions on experimen. However.B. tal animals at a similar time demonstrated the effects of handling on animal behaviour. Furthermore.F. since fear responses to humans were shown to reduce farm animal productivity through stress. Stockperson characteristics are not as amenable to study as other factors such as nutrition.. motivation and commitment. etc. these interactions may also inﬂuence the stockperson to the extent that job-related characteristics. because of our limited ability to: (i) manipulate individual characteristics. such as job satisfaction. progress in understanding these relationships in livestock production was relatively slow at this time compared with other developments in the ﬁeld of animal science. When we wrote the ﬁrst edition in 1998.
A major motivation in writing this book is to provide a consolidated account of the role of stockpeople so that the contribution of the stockperson to farm animal welfare and productivity can be seen to have an importance similar to that of many of the factors which are traditionally considered in animal husbandry. With this review of human–animal interactions in livestock production together with a review of the development of the theory underlying this empirical research. by giving a brief account of the theories or principles underlying the research discussed. If characteristics of the stockperson are important determinants of human–animal interactions. this edition is aimed at those people who have an interest in human–animal interactions in livestock production. opportunities exist to improve animal performance and welfare in those situations in which the human–animal relationship is poor. To some this may be obvious and not worth saying. the second half of the book leads into an examination of the opportunities to manipulate these human–animal interactions.viii Preface of the role of stockpeople in determining animal performance and welfare. will gain insight into the processes that are being described. This presents something of a dilemma when attempting to identify the target audience for this book and. As with the ﬁrst edition. managers of livestock farms. The subject is particularly relevant to those with responsibilities in the areas of staff training and selection in the livestock industries. This in turn is also relevant to the livestock industries’ efforts to attract and retain desirable staff. at the same time. and that human factors need to be recognized as a routine component of animal husbandry. . such as housing. students and academics seeking an introduction to the subject. therefore. We have attempted to make the book as self-contained as possible. animal scientists and industry personnel interested in the role of the stockperson in determining animal productivity and welfare. This topic is also relevant to the livestock industries’ efforts to attract and retain desirable staff. It is our intention to stimulate interest. how to pitch the material so that readers will not ﬁnd it too technical within a particular discipline but. perhaps as trainers. The ﬁrst half of this book contains a detailed review of our empirical knowledge of human–animal interactions and their human and animal effects. understanding and exploration of the subject by animal science students. The research on human–livestock relationships is multidisciplinary in nature and much of the material presented in the two editions is a mixture of agricultural and animal science and psychology. It is the contention of this book that human factors contribute to farm animal welfare and productivity to an extent similar to that of many other factors. Our intention with the ﬁrst edition was to stimulate interest and exploration of the subject of human–animal interactions by animal scientists and industry personnel interested in the role of the stockperson in determining animal performance and welfare. there has been a substantial amount of research conducted on human–livestock relationships since the 1990s. The main opportunities to improve these key human characteristics are through stockperson training and selection. We emphasized that this subject is particularly relevant to those with responsibilities in the areas of staff training and selection in the livestock industries.
have just begun. Australian Poultry Cooperative Research Centre. We should not underestimate the role and impact of the stockperson on animal productivity and welfare. Australian Egg Corporation Ltd. Dairy Australia. One very prominent contributor to this work was the late John Lawrence Barnett. have been signiﬁcant contributions to developments in understanding human–livestock interactions and their impact on the animal.Preface ix but for others. John’s enduring interest in animal biology and how animals deal with challenges. this is a relatively new direction for industries in which stockpeople regularly interact with livestock. together with his rigorous approach to research and review. such as Australian Pork Ltd. As we conclude in the ﬁnal chapter. Much has been done to improve genetics. It is the purpose of this book to establish the credibility of this point of view. nutrition. who performs such a key function. Australian Research Council. Rural Industry Research Corporation (Chicken Meat) and Meat Livestock Australia as well as the Department of Primary Industries (Victoria). Coleman . it remains less obvious or even contentious. Hemsworth and Grahame J. Strategic support and funding by many Australian research organizations. It is likely that both the livestock industries and the general community will place an increasing emphasis on ensuring the competency of stockpeople to manage our livestock: the livestock industries’ interests in this topic are thus likely to be motivated by both animal productivity and welfare and the general community’s interest in animal welfare. To do so will seriously risk the productivity and welfare of our livestock. A substantial amount of the research reported in this book was conducted by the authors and many Australian and overseas colleagues. have been essential in understanding and consequently improving human–animal relationships in the livestock industries. Paul H. health and housing but efforts to target the stockperson.
This page intentionally left blank .
Knowledge and Status Human–animal interactions are a key feature of modern livestock production and research has shown that the quality of the relationship that is developed between stockpeople and their animals can have substantial effects on both the animals and the stockpeople. Hemsworth and G. such as job satisfaction. The second objective of this book is to explore the key human characteristics that inﬂuence animal behaviour. For example. The original research was mainly conducted in Australia and primarily on pigs. There is still a tendency in the livestock industries for stockpeople not to be treated as professionals. By inﬂuencing the behavioural response of animals to humans. which in turn may have marked effects on both partners. Second Edition (P.J. in so doing. Europe and the USA on pigs and other livestock species. but data are now available from New Zealand. in turn affect job retention and thus may have a substantial impact on the stockperson. examine their implications for both the farm animal and the stockperson. human–animal interactions may also have implications for a number of work-related characteristics of the stockperson. there has been a substantial amount of research that has extended these ﬁndings. there is good evidence based on handling studies and observations in the livestock industries that human–animal interactions may markedly affect the productivity and welfare of farm animals.H. The ﬁrst objective of this book is to review human–animal interactions in livestock production and. Human–Livestock Interactions. Coleman) 1 . Since the ﬁrst edition of this book in which our research ﬁndings were heavily utilized to review the inﬂuence of human–animal interactions in livestock production. regulations and husbandry competencies rather than attitudes and behaviour towards animals. Thus an understanding of these key human and animal characteristics and an ability to manipulate at least some of these may offer the livestock industries opportunities to provide beneﬁts for both their animals and their stockpeople in order to improve industry economics and sustainability. handled and managed. which may. A number of human and animal characteristics inﬂuence human–animal interactions. Most stockperson training targets codes of practice. work attitudes and job satisfaction. © CAB International 2011.1 Introduction: the Stockperson as a Professional – Skills. and in particular the ease with which animals can be observed.
even if there is broad agreement about the importance of the stockperson.1 The Role of Stockpeople Any reasonable assessment of the role of stockpeople in modern agriculture indicates that they are professional managers of animals who are integral to determining animal performance and welfare. It is the purpose of this book to establish the credibility of this point of view. which. To some this may be obvious and not worth saying. Thus the third objective of the book is to examine the opportunities for industry to improve these key human characteristics through stockperson training and selection. A major motivation in writing this book is to provide a consolidated account of the role of stockpeople or animal carers in the livestock industries so that the contribution of the stockperson to farm animal welfare and productivity can be seen to have an importance similar to many of the factors that are traditionally considered in animal husbandry. It is one of the important contentions of this book that the recognition of stockpeople as key professional managers of livestock is an important cultural change that is required within livestock production. in the second half of the book (Chapters 6 to 8). but for others it remains less obvious or even contentious. the ﬁrst chapter considers the role of the stockperson. This ﬁrst chapter together with Chapter 2 attempts to set the stage by examining the role of the stockperson in terms of both the stockperson’s role in livestock production and the ethical and welfare issues relating to farming of livestock. opportunities may exist to improve animal performance and welfare in those situations in which the human–animal relationship is poor. More importantly. including stockpeople themselves. and that human factors need to be recognized as a routine component of animal husbandry. The ﬁrst half of this book contains a detailed review of our empirical knowledge of human–animal interactions (Chapters 3 to 5). focusing on his or her skills and knowledge that are required to achieve high animal performance and welfare. It is the contention of this book that human factors contribute to farm animal welfare and productivity to an extent similar to that of many other factors. Owner-operators of farms also may . In particular. Yet there appears to be a general lack of appreciation of this by people within livestock production. which in turn are likely to be highly inﬂuential in affecting animal performance and welfare.2 Chapter 1 performance and welfare. such a change is likely to have implications for the image and self-esteem of stockpeople and the opportunities for training stockpeople. stockpeople are recognized as important resources and consequently policies on the development of this human resource have been introduced. If the characteristics of the stockperson are important determinants of human–animal interactions. leads to the discussion of the theory underlying this empirical research and an examination of the opportunities to manipulate these human–animal interactions. such as housing. 1. In some sectors of livestock production. the relevant human factors and their speciﬁcity or generality across different livestock species constitute an empirical issue that may not be intuitively obvious.
there have been substantial developments in the training of stockpeople. One of the most famous pronouncements on the role of the stockperson in livestock production was contained in the British Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Farm Livestock (Ministry of Agriculture. 24 pregnant sows housed in stalls with neck tethers were randomly assigned to one of three handling treatments: positive handling in which pigs were patted or stroked whenever they approached. Some of the research documenting the stockperson’s contribution will be discussed later in this book. For example. Since the ﬁrst edition of this book. This is partly owing to the difﬁculty of such research but also because of the industry’s focus on technological developments in livestock production. minimal human contact. 2007). and thus on industry proﬁtability and sustainability. In contrast. 2004). diligent stockmanship. appropriate staff selection and training policies and other strategies to select. because commercial and government services have the opportunity to provide such support to smaller enterprises in the interests of industry economics and sustainability. Fisheries and Food. facilitate the appropriate management of this important human resource. it is debatable whether these sentiments have been fully accepted by the livestock industries and others. in itself. 1983): ‘Stockmanship is a key factor because. which is indicative of a chronic stress response (Barnett et al. and negative handling. Unfortunately. despite the evidence that there are several personal characteristics that predict good stockperson performance (Carless et al. (1998) provides limited evidence that positive handling by stockpeople may ameliorate the chronic stress response associated with an aversive housing system. retain and further develop stockpeople are likely to become increasingly widespread as the livestock industries recognize the impact of stockpeople on animal performance and welfare. there has been relatively little research on staff selection (see Coleman. In this study by Pedersen and colleagues. in which pigs were brieﬂy shocked with a battery-operated goad or prodder whenever they closely approached. These developments in the management of human resources should not necessarily remain in the domain of the large corporate enterprises.. no matter how otherwise acceptable a system may be in principle. such a cultural change will.Introduction 3 undervalue their contribution as livestock managers to animal performance and welfare. 1989. but it is useful at this point to consider a study at our laboratory that provides an indication of the contribution of the stockperson to the productivity and welfare of farm animals. without competent. There needs to be a widespread recognition and appreciation of the important role of the stockperson in livestock production. Few studies have attempted to quantify the contribution of the stockperson to animal productivity and welfare. the welfare of animals cannot be adequately catered for’. A study by Pedersen et al.. The positive and negative handling treatments were imposed daily for 3 min and the experimenter squatted in front of each pig’s stall to impose the appropriate treatment if the animal closely approached. Research on pigs has consistently shown that pregnant sows housed in tether stalls of a speciﬁc design will experience a sustained elevation in the basal plasma concentrations of the stress hormone cortisol. Daytime proﬁles of plasma free cortisol were signiﬁcantly lower in the pigs in the positive handling . 1991).
recognition of this role of farm personnel in livestock production leads to the recognition of these personnel as an important human resource that needs to be selected. farm personnel in animal agriculture are regarded as itinerant and unskilled workers. followed by an overview of skills. Handling treatment Dependent variable Daytime mean cortisol concentrations (nmol/l) Positive 2. A good general knowledge of the nutritional. stockpeople are professional managers of livestock. These results demonstrate the importance of human factors in pig welfare and highlight.5 and 3. in this situation.4 Minimal 6. knowledge and status of stockpeople. The role of the stockperson as the key person responsible for the day-to-day welfare and productivity of the animals under his or her care has not received due acknowledgement. Practical experience in the care and maintenance of the animal. climatic. The cortisol concentrations were measured in isolation from humans by the use of extensions to indwelling catheters so that blood samples could be collected by the experimenter in visual isolation from the pigs.1).. 3 min/day for 4 weeks (from Pedersen et al. Ability to work effectively independently and/or in teams. A duty statement for a modern stockperson may be presented as: 1.2 Characteristics of the Stockperson’s Job In general. the importance of human factors for animal welfare and productivity. trained and managed in a way similar to current practice in a wide range of white-collar industries. In fact. Cortisol concentrations in 24 pregnant sows housed on tethers receiving either positive. However.1 treatment than those in the minimal and negative handling treatments (Table 1. 1. . Other handling studies will be discussed in Chapter 3 (Sections 3.6) that highlight the importance of human factors in farm animal performance and welfare. 4. The underlying principles drawn from industrial/ organizational psychology will be discussed ﬁrst. 2. This chapter will consider the factors that need to be addressed when deﬁning the role of the stockperson. under general supervision. with daily responsibility for the care and maintenance of large numbers of animals. Farm managers often appear to be reluctant to invest too much effort in training stockpeople because of the high rate of turnover. social and health requirements of the farm animal. negative or minimal handling.4 Chapter 1 Table 1. 1998).9 Negative 7. Ability to quickly identify any departures in the behaviour.1. 3. Farm owners and the general community (through governments) entrust the welfare and performance of large numbers of animals to the care of stockpeople. health or performance of the animal and promptly provide or seek appropriate support to address these departures.
artiﬁcial rearing of early weaned animals. Climatic conditions may vary markedly in extensive livestock production and stockpeople in these industries are required to work outdoors in extreme weather conditions. semen collection. pasture management to optimize pasture production. Stockpeople are often required to work unconventional and unsocial hours and. castration of males. Stockpeople in piggeries are required to detect oestrus in female pigs in order to accurately time either artiﬁcial insemination or natural mating and identify returns to oestrus.1) and mating assistance. semen preparation and artiﬁcial insemination. 1. Clearly. . together with a range of highly developed husbandry and management skills to effectively care for and manage farm animals. body composition. under unpleasant conditions. health. 1. milk production and reproductive performance. For example. the training of stockpeople to develop these competencies should be a systematically and soundly implemented process in which the requirements of both the stockperson and the industry are addressed.Introduction 5 The stockperson is. routine health checks. at times. and effective and safe animal handling. administering antibiotics and vaccines. such as: oestrus detection (Fig.1. teeth and tail clipping of pigs. required to possess a basic knowledge of both the behaviour of the animal and its nutritional. Fig. social and reproductive requirements. monitoring and adjusting climatic conditions in indoor units. These are highly skilful tasks and stockpeople are required to be competent in many of them. controlling and monitoring of feed intake to optimize growth. therefore. climatic. shearing and crutching of sheep. pregnancy diagnosis with real-time ultrasound. milk harvesting. The conditions in which stockpeople are required to work may differ within and between livestock industries and also from those encountered in nonagricultural industries. housing. stockpeople may have knowledge and skills in a number of diverse management and husbandry tasks.
). that is. In general. English et al. Fisheries and Food. There is a wide range of factors that inﬂuence an individual’s performance in the workplace. For example. provide a basic framework within which the individual interacts with his or her environment. There is a need for speciﬁcity in identifying the characteristics relevant to stockperson performance. etc. Beynon (1991) reported that the families of pig stockpeople regarded employment in the pig industry as having a low status. 1982.1). knowledge. This conclusion demands closer scrutiny. p.4 Fitting the Stockperson to the Job There is a clear need to identify the attributes that best allow a person to meet the job requirements for a stockperson. Seabrook (1982) attempted to identify these in agricultural workers. and so on. in some indoor units efﬂuent odours and dust levels may be offensive. First. including not only skills and knowledge but also learned motivations. 1. on the other hand. but in the absence of any quantitative data was only able to identify some generic descriptive traits that related to the degree of control and level of responsibility with which a stockperson was comfortable. Industry leaders commonly quote the poor image of stockpeople as a factor contributing to the problem of attracting people to and retaining staff in the livestock industries. which affect behaviour. there are characteristics of the individual. there is a range of environmental factors that provide physical constraints within which the person works. there is a range of learned factors. For example.3 The Stockperson: Image and Self-Esteem In contrast to the views discussed earlier and contained in the British Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Farm Livestock (Ministry of Agriculture. Seabrook concluded that ‘one can come to no generalized conclusions explaining why (stockpeople) behave in the way that they do’ (Seabrook. 69). Finally. relatively stable characteristics of the person which initiate and mediate or moderate behaviour. 1.6 Chapter 1 The standard of workplace amenities for both animals and workers may also vary considerably in each type of production system within this continuum. surveys on the self-esteem of stockpeople and their perceptions of their image outside agriculture often portray a disturbing picture. Second. In a compassionate plea for recognition of the role of stockpeople. etc.) and learned factors (skills. On the one hand. the . and often not widely and fully recognized by the animal industries and others. 1983) and the implications of studies such as that by Pedersen and colleagues (Section 1. a range of dispositional factors. The requirements of the job and workplace conditions are onerous and demanding. distance from work. (1992) suggest that stockpeople are the world’s most undervalued profession. there is a range of demographic factors such as family size. Stockperson characteristics will be a combination of dispositions (personality. empathy.
1993). despite the fact that it has been shown that aversive handling has marked negative consequences for the animal and its productivity and welfare (Hemsworth et al. but that we can infer from the person’s behaviour. On the other hand. in the pig industry. The implications that may be drawn from these two kinds of studies are different. The fact that a stockperson is employed in an agricultural system may be a result of a multitude of factors.4. On the one hand. and also the subject of limited research. This will be the subject of extensive review in Chapter 3. health and productivity problems. 1. Research has shown that many stockpeople in the pig and dairy industries do not know what aspects of routine handling farm animals ﬁnd aversive. Less obvious. Although there is some disagreement among psychologists. if he or she does not have these skills. then production will be severely impaired.Introduction 7 small amount of research that has been done on stockperson characteristics has adopted one of two broad approaches. Certainly. a stockperson working with the breeding herd must be good at oestrus detection and conducting artiﬁcial insemination or assisting mating and. p. is the impact of stockperson skills in handling and interacting with intensively and extensively farmed animals. and partly related to the characteristics of the person. partly geographical and ﬁnancial.. Knowing and being skilled at the techniques that must be used to accomplish the task are clearly prerequisites to being able to perform that task.1 Skills and knowledge The single most important factor in job performance is the skills that the person brings to the job. Gordon Allport deﬁned personality as ‘the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustments to his environment’(Allport. a few studies have attempted to identify those characteristics that are associated with stockpeople that achieve good performance in livestock industries. some studies have attempted to identify the characteristics of stockpeople currently employed in livestock industries on the assumption that there will be a match between the job requirements and the person. 1937. For example. . The personal characteristics of the stockperson will be discussed in this chapter from a largely theoretical perspective.4.2 Personality The principal dispositional characteristic that is invoked to account for a range of human behaviours is personality. 1. the fact that a stockperson is currently employed in agriculture does not imply that the person is necessarily the best for the welfare or productivity of the animals under his or her care. The stockperson must also be able to recognize changes in the behaviour and physical condition of livestock that may be indicative of welfare. 48). it is reasonably well accepted that a personality trait is a relatively enduring characteristic which exerts a general effect on that person’s behaviour and which we cannot observe directly. with a more detailed review of current empirical research in later chapters.
(ii) emotional stability. Another measure of personality type. The perennial problem of different measures of personality with variable validity coupled with a variety of outcome measures . Seabrook (1996) reported that pig performance. skills and interests. measured by litter size. and the behaviour of dairy stockpeople toward cows. As will be discussed in more detail later in this book (Section 4. Extraversion is associated with sociability. in different contexts and using different measures of personality. motivations. how they differ in their reactions. (iii) agreeableness. assertiveness and an outgoing nature. It is difﬁcult to extract a pattern from these varied results. The MBTI has four bipolar dimensions: extraversion–introversion. Intellect includes being imaginative. cultured and original (Barrick and Mount. based on the measures used by Seabrook (1972a. but showed no correlations with milk yield. hard work and perseverance. Agreeableness is associated with cooperation. 1992). the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).3. as measured by the MBTI. 1980). sensing perception–intuitive perception. which is considered in Chapter 4 (Section 4. 1991). embarrassment and insecurity. thinking judgement–feeling judgement. This relationship between personality and attitude is consistent with Fishbein and Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein. There was also a less-strong relationship between extraversion and sales performance.8 Chapter 1 Today most researchers agree that personality can be characterized in terms of ﬁve dimensions (the so-called ‘big ﬁve’): (i) extraversion/introversion. and judgement–perception. In a study by Waiblinger et al. the personal characteristics of stockpeople. and (v) intellect (Costa and McCrae. also did not correlate signiﬁcantly with milk yield. identiﬁes the basic characteristics of people in relation to how they use their perceptions and judgement and. These authors argue that personality is one set of factors that underlie attitude formation rather than being a direct determinant of behaviour. and higher piglet mortality at large integrated farms. Conscientiousness is characterized by dependability. (iv) conscientiousness. there is little evidence relating personality directly to work performance in the livestock industries.b). Ravel et al. Seabrook (1972a. Beveridge (1996) investigated the relationship between personality types. values. therefore. was associated with aspects of stockperson personality. Emotional stability refers to a trait similar to Eysenck’s (1966) neuroticism and includes such things as anxiety. good nature and tolerance. The MBTI correlated more strongly with measures of stockperson attitude than with stockperson behaviour. The fact that several researchers.1). have been able to ﬁnd direct or indirect relationships between stockperson personality and production outcomes does suggest that personality may well be a relevant factor in animal systems. These personality factors appear to be useful in matching people to some kinds of jobs.b) reported that the stockperson’s personality was related to the behaviour of the cows and milk yield of the herd.2). (2002). (1996) found that some personality attributes were associated with piglet survival at independent owneroperated farms. but did correlate with the attitudes of stockpeople. Signiﬁcant relationships have been found in the pig industry between personality types of stockpeople and productivity in farrowing units. Barrick and Mount (1991) found that conscientiousness predicted job success across a range of job categories and was the most signiﬁcant personality characteristic associated with sales performance.
These elements may take the form of vicarious experience of another’s emotions or may simply be a capacity for role taking.. 1. (1985) have concluded that the most appropriate way of considering empathy is to regard it as being multifaceted and containing both role taking and vicarious experience components. Coleman et al. 1996.3. In fact.Introduction 9 serves to obscure the picture. Chlopan et al. there is some argument about whether empathy is innate or learned. Certainly. Also.. which is amenable to training. an empathic bond may exist between stockpeople and their animals. While empathy is a dispositional characteristic. (2002) provide evidence in support of the proposed relationship between personality variables and attitudes on the one hand. In other .1). These results are consistent with the Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) approach. which suggests that personality may inﬂuence the development of attitudes but not directly affect behaviour. In summary.4. unlike personality. data from the studies by Beveridge (1996). empathy does not refer to the bond itself.or herself to a task will depend. Empathy refers to the way in which stockpeople may feel a bond with their animals because of being able to put themselves in the animal’s position or to understand the way in which the animals are reacting. Empathy can be described as the capacity to put oneself in the place of another.3 Work motivation The extent to which a person applies him. however. Duan and Hill (1996) distinguished between a trait approach. In a recent review. The limited research on empathy will be discussed in detail later (Section 4. 1992). The attributional element relates to people’s capacity to recognize the emotional state of the animal. which may have its origins in a number of factors of which empathy is one. the term empathy has been used to describe the bond that exists between humans and animals under their care (English et al. and a situation-speciﬁc social learning approach. (1998) and Waiblinger et al. an attributional and an experiential element. in part. In the agricultural literature. and between attitudes and stockperson behaviour on the other. the fact that the dependent variables often are farm outcomes rather than the performance of individual stockpeople means that. 1998). on the extent to which the person ‘wishes’ to achieve the task. It has two basic components. the idea that stockpeople will perform best if they have good insight into the emotional responses of the animals under their care has strong intuitive appeal and is consistent with our ﬁndings that stockperson behaviour is an important determinant of farm animal productivity. Only limited empirical data from livestock production are available (Beveridge. which is widely adopted by psychotherapists and others. Coleman et al. it may be the case that degree of empathy predisposes people to be good stockpeople. it may be difﬁcult to determine the causal sequence between stockperson characteristics and productivity. Apart from personality measures. while the experiential element refers to people’s capacity to experience an emotional state following its observation in an animal. but in general. because many factors can intervene between stockperson characteristics and the productivity and welfare of the animals under his or her care. empathy appears to be correlated with attitudes rather than with speciﬁc stockperson behaviours.
This approach to motivation has its origins in the work by B. In the context of a job. These needs. a clinical psychologist. At one extreme. Sections 2. attitude towards making money on the farm. In other words. food. understanding was his discovery of operant (instrumental) conditioning. . but it is the one that is reinforced that becomes established (following reward) or extinguished (following punishment). etc. upward striving. motivation can be seen to result from the rewards and punishments that a particular behaviour has produced. The person may make several natural or previously learned responses to an event simultaneously. If both of these are met.1) and 5 (Section 5. of course.). However.2. in sequence. in particular.1. was associated with career interest. the idea that the most basic needs were most fundamental to survival of the organism and that higher order needs could be postponed without detriment to the organism (Fig. as measured by progressive farm behaviour. and so on. a need for food or water but. How behaviours develop is discussed in some detail in Chapter 5. intelligence. In fact. At the other extreme. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was based on a number of principles. 1983) showed that productivity. Maslow. we discuss motivation in terms of the underlying state of the organism. motives develop through learning and depend on the history of rewards and punishments a person has experienced. for example. Operant conditioning is considered in more detail later in this book (e.2). and in Chapters 3 (Section 3. In general. Motivation cannot be directly observed.2). 1. esteem needs (recognition by others) and self-actualization (self-fulﬁlment). what is the role of motivation in professional stockperson behaviour? Motivation refers to the underlying forces that direct behaviour. to stockperson performance in achieving high animal welfare and productivity. then motivation will not make any difference. whatever its origin. This suggests that motivational factors.2. it is not so important for us to settle on a particular theory of motivation so much as to consider the relevance of motivation. tolerance for work pressure and punctuality. skills and opportunity to perform the task. a study carried out in India (Singh.10 Chapter 1 words. skills or opportunity to perform a job.). is that the person must be motivated.1). a good stockperson is one who is motivated to apply skills and knowledge to the management of the animals under his or her care. However. What this means. it is accepted that motivation alone is insufﬁcient for good work performance. In the case of humans. such as upward striving and the need to make money.g.4. the person will be motivated by a need for social contact. there is considerable argument about the nature of motivation. The idea is that people will be motivated by. if a person does have the knowledge. Skinner’s contribution to our . there is little systematic study of the effect of motivation on stockperson performance. but it occurs when a person (or animal) responds naturally to an event and the response is reinforced (rewarded or punished). can contribute to productivity on a farm. etc.2 and 5. if that need is met. safety needs.5. which directs behaviour (Maslow. In some respects. rewards can include learned rewards such as feelings of pride or accomplishment. proposed that there is a hierarchy of innate needs. it is inferred from observed behaviour. if a person does not have the knowledge.F Skinner (1969). particularly in terms of hunger or thirst or some hormonal state that directs behaviour. were physiological needs (air. social needs (presence of others. they will be motivated by a need for security. 1970).
4.Introduction 11 Basic needs Basic physiological needs Safety needs Social needs Ego (esteem) needs Higher-order needs Self-actualization (fulfilment) needs Fig. in order to satisfactorily analyse such data. such as how boring the job is. may all contribute to absenteeism. 1. There is a large number of factors that contribute to absenteeism. However. Because . Anecdotal evidence from the pig industry in Australia indicates that turnover rates of 50% per annum for new stockpeople are not uncommon. people often take ‘sickies’. it is sometimes the case that the organization may encourage the departure of a worker because of organizational change or because the performance of the worker is not satisfactory in some respect. Johns (1987) estimated that absenteeism costs to the US industry at that time could be as high as US$30 billion with about 2–4% of the labour force being away from work on any given day. Maslow’s (1970) hierarchy of needs. the size of the organization and. To use an Australian vernacular expression. Another contributing factor may be that women generally occupy lower-status jobs than men with lower levels of job satisfaction. other characteristics of the work situation. Women are absent from work more than men.4 Absenteeism. but the most consistent factor is level of job dissatisfaction. Campion (1991) has deﬁned turnover as individual motivated choice behaviour. Turnover usually refers to workers leaving the organization and being replaced by others. job turnover and job commitment Absenteeism is usually deﬁned in terms of number of days absent and frequency of absences. it is desirable to distinguish between excused and unexcused absences. 1.2. Despite the fact that most people mention some medical problem as the reason for absenteeism. perhaps. sick days that are really only days off work when the person is not sick. it is unlikely that this is always the real reason. He argues that there may be a number of motivations underlying employee departure and. it is essential that detailed records of employees’ reasons for departure are obtained. it is not a particularly strong relationship. that is. and agricultural industries are no exception. The only personal factor that is consistently related to absenteeism is gender. Absenteeism is one of the major sources of disruption and cost to industry. Organizational variables. Although the relationship between job dissatisfaction and absenteeism is consistent. The explanation for this comes in part from the fact that women have family responsibilities that may require them to be absent. In the USA. However. Jewell and Siegall (1990) have reviewed factors associated with absenteeism.
satisfaction of needs and work ethic. age. (1988) suggest that decline in job satisfaction is associated with staff turnover. In other words. This is determined in part by the nature of the current job. There is evidence to suggest that people with a strong work ethic.5 Job satisfaction Job satisfaction is an attitude towards work that is based on how the person evaluates the work. that there is a complex set of factors that contribute to job commitment.4. In general. correlations between absenteeism and turnover are close to zero. Jewell and Siegall (1990) have reviewed the research in this area. They are also moderated by job circumstances that include job satisfaction. There appear to be no data on the causes of job turnover that speciﬁcally relate to agricultural industries. Job turnover is regarded as independent of absenteeism. This capacity for movement is determined by the worker’s task-relevant abilities. There has been no systematic investigation of factors associated with job commitment in agricultural industries. The ﬁrst of these is the extent to which a worker is able to move to a new job. In general. and other variables have not received much attention. However. The second component is the worker’s desire for movement to a new job. would be more likely to stay in the job and try to change the situation. there is some evidence to suggest that it is the better performers who stay in the organization. including marital status. job satisfaction refers to the extent to which a person reacts favourably or unfavourably to his or her work. Most research has investigated the relationship between job satisfaction and turnover.12 Chapter 1 good records of workers’ reasons for departure are often not kept. Those who entered the job with low levels of satisfaction would be more likely to leave if satisfaction declined. psychological factors and other nonmotivational job factors. it can be difﬁcult to decide whether the departure was voluntary or involuntary. Job commitment is a product of personal variables and the characteristics of the work situation. Rusbult et al. the opportunity for progression in the organization and the rewards associated with the job. Chusmir (1982) has proposed a model of job commitment in which personal factors such as gender. that is. are also those who have a high degree of job satisfaction. which together contribute to job commitment.3). work attitudes and needs all contribute to job commitment (Fig. spouse support and earnings. It is clear. 1. job satisfaction is thought to derive from the extent to which a person’s needs or expectations are being met by the job. If job satisfaction is related to work . They argue that people with high levels of job satisfaction before it declined. 1. educational level. These personal variables are moderated by family characteristics. utilization of skills. to the person’s attitude towards the job. Job commitment refers to the behaviour opposite to that of leaving the organization. self-esteem and recent job-seeking experience. those who have a strong degree of job commitment. in turn. and satisfaction with family life. therefore. They concluded that there were two key components that contributed to the intention of a worker to seek a new job. meaningfulness of work. All of these contribute.
as were 61% of the young people in animal husbandry. despite the widespread use of the construct in industrial/organizational psychology. In a review of studies from the Soviet Union. This research showed that in the Moscow region about 30% of workers had decided to or were nearly resolved to switch jobs. well-substantiated theories of job satisfaction are difﬁcult to ﬁnd.Introduction Job commitment 13 Personal influence Sex Background Age Education level Birth order Parents’ social class Attitudes and values Centrality of work Extrinsic needs Personal values Intrinsic needs High-order growth needs External moderating influences Moderated perceptions Family characteristics Marital status Child responsibility Supportiveness of spouse Spouse’s earnings Satisfaction with family life Job circumstances Job satisfaction Meaningfulness of work Utilization of skills Psychological job factors Non-motivational job factors Perceived role behaviour and attitude Sex–role conflict Satisfaction of needs Work commitment Job commitment Propensity to stay with job Propensity to become deeply involved with job Fig. 74% of farm workers reported that they were satisﬁed with their work. Nevertheless. research shows that absenteeism and job turnover are associated with poor job satisfaction. 44% of young people in general were similarly disposed. A model of job commitment (adapted from Chusmir. both from the Soviet Union and Western countries. Phillips and Benson (1983) reported that there were numerous reports. research from Ivanov and Patrushev (1976) into the ‘social factors of increasing the productivity of labor in agriculture’. then this provides a clear role for motivation in contributing. in some detail. A strong inverse relationship was found between number of days missed and work attitude.3. In general. showing a clear correlation between work dissatisfaction and the probability of switching jobs. with permission from the publishers). 1. Unfortunately. A satisﬁed worker missed an average of . indirectly. 1982. This research also showed a strong relationship between degree of work satisfaction and the desire to achieve better results. They reported. to work performance. performance. and job satisfaction varied directly with working conditions and skill level.
job status. level of education. anxiety. A model of work performance (adapted from Blumberg and Pringle. the key feature of any employee is how well he or she does the job.3 days each year. Blumberg and Pringle (1982) have proposed a model of work performance that identiﬁes three classes of contributing factors (Fig.3 days annually. and opportunity includes working conditions. intelligence. ability and knowledge. working conditions. with permission from the publishers). health. . materials and supplies. stamina. while a dissatisﬁed worker missed an average of 10. skills. values. legitimacy of participation. pay Fig. 1. 1. mentorism. motor skills Performance Willingness Motivation. equipment. ego involvement. actions of coworkers. This is not an exhaustive list of variables in Blumberg and Pringle’s model.4). attitude. job satisfaction. rules and procedures. knowledge.5 Evaluating Job Performance Without doubt. job satisfaction and work attitude. health. the second is opportunity and the third is willingness. leader behaviour. perceived task characteristics. feelings of equity Opportunity Tools. Capacity includes variables such as skills. organizational policies. job involvement. while willingness includes motivation. Many of the factors just discussed were addressed in a study which identiﬁed the characteristics of pig stockpeople that predict work performance (Coleman. self-image. The ﬁrst factor is capacity to do the job. actions of co-workers and organizational policies and rules. norms. quality and quantity. personality. 1. energy level. There are two aspects to work performance. information. Capacity Ability. time. perceived role expectations. age. endurance.14 Chapter 1 4.4. 1982. but it should be evident that all of the variables we have discussed so far contribute to work performance under the model.
2). Satisfaction: how satisﬁed supervisors judge stockpeople to be.23 0.27* 0. Predictors of pig stockperson performance (from Coleman. show stability of behaviour. . Positive attitude: positive attitude toward pigs. completed a set of computerized questionnaires. conscientiousness.28* −0. 2001). PDI-EI tenure: likelihood of remaining in a job for at least 3 months. Stockperson performance variableb Supervisor rating Independent observer rating Stockperson Predictor variablesa Sex PDI-EI performance PDI-EI tenure Positive attitude Empathy affect Empathy attribution Conscientiousness 0.03 0. 2 = female.13 0. bStockperson performance variables are as follows.18 0.27 0. at the commencement of employment. The self-reported PDI Employment Inventory (PDIEI) Performance measure (Personnel Decisions Inc. and were independently rated as having greater technical knowledge and a better work ethic compared with males.12 0. Work ethic: independent observer’s rating of stockperson’s work ethic. assessed on commencement of employment. performance potential. technical knowledge and work ethic were directly assessed by an independent observer.2. take care while performing tasks and take responsibility. technical knowledge.11 0. Carless et al.17 −0.41** −0. Females were rated as more conscientious by their supervisors. the PDI-EI Tenure measure correlated Table 1. Sex: 1 = male. 1996). Stockperson behaviour towards their pigs. attitudes and empathy toward pigs. turnover potential.29* 0. n = 50–64 stockpeople. 1979).01) indicate associations between the two variables.05 0. was related to the independently observed behaviour of stockpeople towards pigs. satisfaction and intention to leave the job soon (intention to turn over) (Table 1. Behaviour towards pigs: independent observer’s rating of stockperson’s handling of pigs. motivation.29* 0. A supervisor report of satisfaction and conscientiousness was used to measure these aspects of stockperson performance..45** 0.32* 0.23 0. PDI-EI performance: expected job performance.05 0.39** Signiﬁcant correlations (* = P < 0.03 0.37** −0.33* −0.27 0.. Empathy attribution: belief that animals are like humans. Those stockpeople who remained at the piggery for 6 months were studied.05 and ** = P < 0. A total of 144 inexperienced stockpeople participated in this study in which stockpeople. which included measures of personality.11 0. Stockperson performance was assessed at this time using ratings of stockperson behaviour towards their pigs.19 0. Conscientiousness: how conscientious supervisors judge stockpeople to be. 2007).37** 0. A person scoring high on this measure is likely to adhere to rules. Intention to turn over was assessed using the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann et al.26 0.13 Technical Behaviour Work Intention Satisfaction knowledge towards pigs ethic to turn over 0.15 0.06 −0.Introduction 15 2001.30* 0.10 0. Intention to turn over: likelihood of seeking a new job in the next year. In contrast. Technical knowledge: independent observer’s rating of stockperson’s technical knowledge. Empathy effect: concern about animals’ feelings.29* 0.35** −0.. aPredictor variables are as follows.39** 0.22 0.
this study leaves some tantalizing questions. abilities. being female was not associated with better observed behaviour towards pigs.1 Training of stockpeople If the question was asked of industry personnel about the role of the stockperson in livestock production. work ethic. managers.05). Another ﬁnding was that 50% of new stockpeople left their jobs within 6 months of employment. and there will be further review of relevant studies later in this book. tender mindedness. 1. it should be clear by now that it is possible to characterize a stockperson in terms of the person’s motivation.. breeding and health. a comprehensive model of factors contributing to the stockperson’s performance on animal welfare and productivity will also be outlined. no consistent relationships between personality and stockperson performance were observed. Later on.6 The Stockperson’s Role: Preparing the Stockperson for the Task 1. nutrition.01) and a trait unique to the Kline and Lapham (1991a. Why do women appear to perform better than men? Is it because they self-select in animal care jobs? Do (male) raters rate females higher in genderstereotyped areas of behaviour? Are females better stockpeople and are they more conscientious? Notably. Stockpeople often underestimate their value and contribution to livestock production (English et al. and most of the industry training . However.b) Professional Personality Questionnaire. 1992). As we have discussed in this chapter. and it appears that supervisors.39. A positive attitude towards the characteristics of pigs correlated signiﬁcantly with conscientiousness and intention to remain in the job. P < 0. Therefore. Research and development in livestock production have focused on technological innovation. it would probably be generally stated that stockpeople have a critical role. Nevertheless. was related to intention to turnover (correlation coefﬁcient of 0. However. neuroticism was associated with observer rating of work ethic (correlation coefﬁcient of 0. As is always the case in research. skills and knowledge. Finally. job satisfaction. just how seriously and extensively this subject is taken and thus acted on are questionable. especially in areas such as housing. these measures of stockperson performance have the potential to be used to identify potentially good stockpeople.16 Chapter 1 with intention to remain in employment over the next year. P < 0. there are some data in support of the idea that personal characteristics are related to work performance in the agricultural industries. needs.6. One of the important features of this study is that all the measures of stockperson characteristics were taken in an initial interview and the performance measures 6 months later. Although a ‘big ﬁve’ measure of personality was used in this study.28. behaviour towards pigs and intention to remain in the job. empathy towards animals correlated with technical knowledge. farm owners and industry leaders may also undervalue the contribution of stockpeople.
it is imperative that technological training of its staff occurs. while well over half of the employers and employees surveyed in a study of the Canadian pig industry recognized that speciﬁc skills were required to effectively conduct a number of routine tasks in pig production. health and safety. perhaps reﬂecting to some extent the attitude of senior industry personnel to stockperson training. Where available. but at times the focus here is also on training future supervisors and managers. The less than satisfactory opportunities for training stockpeople and the poor attitudes of many industry personnel to staff training also reﬂect a lack of appreciation of the importance of training in the industry. In comparison. only 4% of stockpeople had attended any form of training courses in the previous 2 years. agricultural training for stockpeople has been traditionally college based. and should be an ongoing process. and perhaps. With the rapid technological development in livestock production. Many of these courses are particularly aimed at future supervisors and managers. The widespread availability and the effectiveness of both on-site and off-site training of stockpeople are highly variable. training of stockpeople has often been neglected. and the high staff turnover rates in some livestock industries. On-site training may also be more attractive to . Segundo (1989) found that 87% of 15 piggeries in Scotland had no off-site training available and 53% had no on-site training for stockpeople.Introduction 17 has generally targeted training supervisors and managers in these new technologies. should target all farm staff. not just senior staff. Many livestock industries in many countries are well serviced by industry days and seminars offered by government or university agricultural agencies and agricultural product companies. This training.5). Apprenticeship schemes offer both theoretical and practical training. For example. For stockpeople. The attitude of stockpeople to training. One could also question the relevance of some of these programmes in addressing the requirements of industry and stockpeople themselves. which should contain both the appropriate theoretical components and practical training. may also be considered by some industry personnel to reduce the imperative for training. this training obviously needs to focus on technical skills and knowledge. with the focus on classroom teaching and often less than ideal opportunities for experience in commercial-like conditions. where appropriate.. but these programmes often target senior farm staff. and equipment use and maintenance. Only 13% of Australian pig stockpeople surveyed by Kondos (1983) had received some organized technical training. There appears to be a growing international trend towards providing more training for stockpeople on site and less in agricultural colleges or technical education centres (Fig. 1. Lloyd (1974) reported that while 86% of poultry stockpeople had no previous experience with poultry. The costs and logistics involved in replacing staff and releasing staff to travel to training venues may certainly inﬂuence industry’s support for this development. on interpersonal skills such as working effectively in teams. Several authors have commented on the parlous state of stockperson training in a number of livestock industries. occupational. surprisingly less than half of them generally believed that training was required to develop these skills (survey results quoted by English et al. with little relevance to base-grade stockpeople. 1992).
to the situation where structured in-house training programmes. However. and skills training under commercial conditions. Multimedia training packages. Low levels of training skills by senior farm staff can inhibit learning in training programmes conducted on site. 1990). 1995). and a lack of suitable reference material for in-house training appears to be a limitation for many livestock industries. Indeed. conducted either by experienced staff or trained human resource management staff. This may be particularly relevant as the latter setting may be more threatening and intimidating for many base-grade stockpeople who may have previously had difﬁculty with a formal educational system. by either local or external trainers. and because the training can occur in a familiar less formal training setting that is often in contrast to the more formal classroom setting. large corporate farming companies appear to be becoming increasingly active in developing and introducing local outcome-oriented training for their stockpeople. some of these in-house training schemes are very progressive with well-developed syllabuses and involve both classroom instruction. are undertaken and these training activities are linked with competency assessments and remuneration (Miller. Staff cultural attitudes about education may also inhibit learning in both on-site and off-site settings. The on-site training may vary from simple training activities in which the more experienced staff. in which relevant practical sessions can be offered. industry because it occurs in a commercial setting. in which information is presented in several forms. 1.5. and which allow stockpeople to individually interact at their . act as mentors for inexperienced staff. Organized discussions between experienced and inexperienced staff have been and continue to be a common on-site training activity (Cleary. not necessarily with any formal instruction on teaching techniques.18 Chapter 1 Fig. On-site training of new staff is becoming increasingly common in the livestock industries.
skills. This approach also has the potential to relieve managers or senior stockpeople of formal didactic teaching sessions and allow them to be used more effectively as facilitators in group sessions where experiences can be shared and views developed in an advantageous setting. demographic data and previous experience may also be useful in screening out potential employees with a low chance of success. However..Introduction 19 own pace with the teaching programme in an informal non-threatening manner. dairy and red-meat industries. may be more conducive for learning (Hemsworth and Coleman. 1. these interactive multimedia programmes allow staff to be released for training without major disruptions to work. and the provision of trainers or opportunities to train in-house trainers to facilitate the training and assess staff undergoing this training. Furthermore. These are the ProHand packages that are designed for stockpeople on farm and in abattoirs in the pig. perhaps. high job satisfaction and capacity for development in the job. Usually a face-to-face interview with an applicant can also provide useful data if the interviewer is experienced in selecting people for a particular industry or profession. and . 2000). For example. and the EU packages have been subjected to a preliminary ﬁeld evaluation with promising results (Windschnurer et al. work ethic and. will make training more accessible to industry.4. 2002. and to progressively complete training modules and be assessed at times that are convenient for management. Borofsky and Smith (1993) found that the use of such a procedure resulted in a reduction in turnover.6. it may be appropriate to measure all of these factors as part of a selection process. It is important that the person carrying out the selection process should behave ethically towards job applicants. they were rigorously evaluated during development (Hemsworth et al. Ruis et al. 2009). 2009b. in general. 2010). and a similar set of packages developed in Europe as part of the EU Sixth Framework Programme for stockpeople in the pig. 1994a. While there is a limited number of reports on the effectiveness of these packages in the livestock industries. accidents and absenteeism. because work preference. personality factors may all contribute to worker performance..3). (ii) information provided by the applicant should be kept conﬁdential and should not be used for any other purpose without explicit permission from the applicant. This matching process can involve assessing applicants with respect to many of the variables discussed earlier in this chapter.. There are three basic facets to this responsibility: (i) the selection ofﬁcer should ensure that the selection processes that he or she uses are as up to date and reliable as possible.2 Selection of stockpeople Selection is the process of matching a person to a particular job. Coleman et al. As an example of the advantages of a selection procedure. A series of multimedia programmes using the model developed in this book have appeared. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 (Section 7.. poultry and cattle industries. Support by government and commercial services in the provision of interactive user-friendly multimedia packages on key technical issues. knowledge.
Recognition of this contribution should facilitate improvements in stockperson selection and training. 2001. this knowledge has not been incorporated into a selection procedure that has been fully ﬁeld tested. 2004. The management of the human resources in livestock production at the level of the stockperson appears to be highly variable. requirements of food processors and retailers.6. Indeed.20 Chapter 1 (iii) the selection ofﬁcer should evaluate the efﬁcacy of the selection procedure and ensure that the organization is able to accurately determine the costs and beneﬁts of the procedure. Chapter 2 discusses some of these welfare issues that are critical to the sustainability of livestock production. The opportunities for staff selection and training are explored in detail in the latter half of this book.3 Human resource issues In non-agricultural areas. or government regulation.5).. may inﬂuence the ability of the industry to produce or sell its animal products.6. the small-scale operations that are often prominent in livestock production and the lack of business management skills seen at times in livestock production may contribute to this weakness. Carless et al. Some suggestions to indicate how this might be done will be discussed later in the book (Section 8. all of which should contribute to higher job performance and staff retention rates. Despite the fact that we can identify some characteristics that predict good stockperson performance in intensive farming industries (Coleman. The earlier comments about lack of recognition of the stockperson’s role in animal performance and welfare. 2007). general community concern about animal welfare problems in a livestock industry. its measurement and its consequences. One of the minor aims of this book is to foster recognition of the role that the stockperson plays in livestock production. and appropriate ﬁnancial and personal rewards for stockpeople. through consumer boycotts. . the need to retain desirable staff and to foster high standards of work ethic are generally well recognized and addressed. 1. The importance of this topic should not be underestimated because of its implications for not only the animal but also the sustainability and economics of the livestock industries. It is important to discuss these issues in a book about stockpeople because the stockperson plays an integral role in safeguarding the welfare of both intensively and extensively farmed animals. 1. after the interrelationships between the characteristics of stockpeople and the behaviour.4 The stockperson and animal welfare Because of the important inﬂuence of the stockperson on the welfare of farm animals and the widespread community interest in animal welfare. performance and welfare of farm animals are reviewed.
local and international agricultural markets are ﬁercely competitive. Human–Livestock Interactions. including farm animals. Coleman.2 Farm Animal Welfare: Assessment.1 Introduction There is considerable public interest in animal welfare and most people believe that animals.H. in determining animal welfare standards (Coleman. development of new products and marketing expertise to maintain competitiveness and increase sales. the results of welfare research on farming practices will inﬂuence both industry practices and the public’s and consumers’ perception of the product. because a deterioration in the welfare of animals is often associated with reductions in individual animal performance. The livestock industries are also sensitive to the issue of the welfare of farm animals. This arises. Second Edition (P. Indeed. and in addition to the necessity of technological improvements. Animal welfare is a social issue often discussed in the public domain and thus the public may be inﬂuential. should be not be subjected to pain or severe discomfort (Fraser and Broom. Food processors and retailers may act on consumer and public concerns to restrict or eliminate contentious welfare issues in farms that supply their animal products. in part. stockpeople have a critical role in ensuring that the welfare of their livestock is not compromised. Coleman) 21 . 1990. While not always well and widely recognized.J. The image of a welfare-friendly product requires farming practices that minimize the risk to animal welfare and the provision of objective information that positively inﬂuences the public’s and consumers’ beliefs about the welfare implications of the farming practices that produce the product concerned. Furthermore. Issues and Implications 2. livestock industries need to project a welfare-friendly image of their products to maximize their marketing advantage. Hemsworth and G. The general © CAB International 2011. Concerns about the welfare of farm animals in a particular industry may also inﬂuence the buying behaviour of current or potential consumers of the product from that industry. via government decisions. 2008). 2008). Codes of practice or government regulations may restrict speciﬁc practices in a particular livestock industry that the general community ﬁnds objectionable on welfare grounds.
the animals are maintained and cared for by humans. caged birds and ﬁsh in aquariums in many households are predominantly kept for entertainment and aesthetics. relationship often exists between humans and pets in the general community. As in the early phases of domestication. a detailed discussion of animal welfare is presented in the chapter. Undoubtedly. However. The general public’s romantic view of livestock farming involving the shepherd looking after the ‘ﬂock’ does not extend to modern farming systems and. the general public probably does not recognize the general fondness and friendship that many farmers or stockpeople have for their animals. The popular view of modern farm animals being exploited has probably arisen for several reasons. the relationship between humans and animals in modern livestock production has components of symbiosis in that. is well recognized. 2.22 Chapter 2 public and. the contribution of stockpeople to animal welfare in both intensive and extensive systems is poorly recognized. and still is. in contrast. with large numbers of animals. Because of its implications for the animal. while the symbiosis or interdependence of this relationship between humans and animals in the livestock industries is recognized to some extent (Hemsworth. For example. often under tightly controlled environmental conditions. This intensiﬁcation of . its assessment and its consequences for the animal. and managed by few stockpeople who often may be employed with limited animal husbandry experience or training. The similarity of the two relationships. the satisfaction of economic demands is the main feature of this human–farm animal relationship today.2 Human–Animal Relationships in Livestock Production Humans working closely with their livestock develop relationships with their animals often not dissimilar from those that develop between humans and companion animals. needs-based. in return for the animal products that they provide for humans. The fact that most of us view our pets as companions. A similar. a feature of the relationship between humans and domestic animals. 2007a). This discussion of animal welfare focuses on its deﬁnition. may surprise many people. indeed. the livestock industries and the general public. This chapter introduces the topic of the human–animal relationship in livestock production and its consequences for the welfare of farm animals. This is a simplistic and inaccurate way of describing the human–animal relationship in modern livestock production because it fails to recognize the interdependence between stockpeople and their animals. many within the livestock industries would contend that housing systems pose the main risk to animal welfare in intensive livestock systems. in fact. the stockperson. the human–animal relationship in modern farming is often viewed by the general public as an exploitative one by humans in which little or no regard is afforded to the welfare of these farm animals. Economic pressures have led to the intensiﬁcation of farming. our ethics concerning the care and use of animals in general have greatly improved in recent times. Despite the fact that reciprocal need has been. However. particularly in terms of their strength and quality. often with considerable affection.
and we Fig. Unfortunately. but have long treated and viewed their animals with affection as companions (Fig. with potential adverse consequences for proﬁtability.1. particularly the housing developments. 2010). consequently. which invariably has promoted a view of exploitation of animals. often creates suspicions about conditions for farm animals. at times. Most stockpeople recognize that deterioration in the welfare of their animals may result in depressions in the productivity and health of individual animals. reproduction and health. 1990).Farm Animal Welfare 23 animal farming was developed and introduced to optimize animal growth. Stockpeople obviously consider their animals as resources. in turn. the general public’s requirement for cheaper and safe farming products has dictated the search by agricultural scientists. . The enormous difference today in the lifestyles and experiences of people in urban communities compared with those in rural communities does not assist the general public’s awareness and understanding of what has happened and is happening in livestock production. 2. the trend towards intensiﬁcation has probably been inﬂuential in shaping public opinion. veterinary scientists and farmers for maximum animal output at the minimum cost. were introduced without adequate knowledge of or regard for the animal’s ability to adapt to the changes and. The farming communities around the world can certainly improve their efforts in educating the public about modern farming practices and the reasons for these practices (Coleman. Furthermore. animal welfare has sometimes been compromised.1) (Fraser and Broom. This opinion may be difﬁcult for some outside livestock production to accept. 2. Stockpeople have long treated and viewed their animals with affection and have often considered them as companions (photograph courtesy of Wageningen UR Communication Services). these management innovations. and this.
measured in terms of stockpeople’s beliefs about their animals and their behaviour towards these animals. particularly in terms of awareness and recognition of the subject. legislative change incorporating animal welfare standards and animal welfare auditing schemes. Media reports of poor welfare in the livestock industries often relate to bad behaviour by stockpeople (arising from negligence or lack of care) as well as poor animal facilities. as well as the behaviour of these farm animals in the presence of humans. the competency and motivation of the stockperson in the care and management of the animals are critical ingredients in determining their welfare. just as there have been cases involving companion animals.3 Animal Welfare and the Debate Animal welfare is a highly emotive subject and most of us are not spared the emotions that the topic can create. 2. it is the stockperson that is charged with ensuring that a particular farming system is operated properly and diligently. Irrespective of our lifestyle. the inﬂuence of the attitude of the stockperson on the welfare and productivity of modern livestock increases correspondingly. recent developments. disease and climatic factors may inﬂuence the welfare of farm animals. the large number of animals under the care of an individual stockperson in modern farming systems. While physical. extensive research on this subject has not been translated widely into industry practice. However. The quality of these human–animal relationships. although one could argue that. are considered in detail in a number of animal industries. We will contend throughout this book that while the attitude of the stockperson towards his or her animals is highly inﬂuential in determining animal welfare and productivity in modern livestock production. continuing research. Furthermore. together with any weaknesses in the competency and diligence of an individual. such as education of the community in terms of its responsibility. suitability of particular species as pets and the proper care and maintenance of pets. the introduction of improved codes of practice. social. may have serious effects on animal welfare and productivity. indicate the promise of ever-increasing improvements in farm animal welfare. This arises not only because of the number of animals involved but also because of the almost total dependence of animals on humans in some of these systems. Ultimately. and these are likely to continue. It is indisputable that there have been cases of animal abuse and cruelty in livestock production. Improvements in a range of areas. nutritional. the developments have been less. most people in . As the dependence of animals on the stockperson for their care and maintenance increases. are likely to reduce the incidence and magnitude of abuses that have occurred in the past.24 Chapter 2 will return to this point later in the book. Community pressure on the welfare of laboratory animals has also resulted and is likely to continue to result in improvements in the care and use of these animals. Weaknesses in the motivation of the stockperson to follow farm protocols for animal care and maintenance and to monitor and promptly address welfare issues arising in his or her area of responsibility will place animal welfare and productivity at risk. A similar situation exists with the welfare of companion animals. in general.
there are strong community views about the adverse effects of domestic animals on humans. Most people. we tend to think of their suffering in human terms and try to deal with the situation much as we would with another human. In fact. restricting people’s use of and access to animals. the scientiﬁc community on the topic of animal welfare. This. in turn. Singer. However. Equally. animal welfare is a controversial subject because of its subjectivity. 2001. companion and laboratory animals. Cain. the farming community and. 1993). Images in wildlife documentaries portraying the survival of the ﬁttest individuals and the death of the weakest generally strike an emotive chord in most of us. The writings of a number of authors (e. Nevertheless. the suffering of an ageing or ill pet and the difﬁculty in assessing the pain or suffering of a loved animal. Decisions about animal welfare are obviously morally and politically important. and the ensuing interest and debate clearly focused. particularly in relation to the standards of welfare that society should provide to these animals. 2009). The emotional effects of our possible loss may accentuate our concern. Failure to address the community’s views may result in the general community. 2. 1985. what is at question for most people is the extent of this obligation. 1964. Most people experience ﬁrst hand. Walsh. at some stage in their life. indeed. their domestication has increased their dependence on humans and thus necessitates this obligation. often based predominantly on value judgements. even to the extent that jealousies and conﬂict arise because a family pet competes for our affections (Cox. for example. A consensus on this aspect of fair and humane treatment is difﬁcult to achieve . A range of views on the subject. would probably agree that the debate has had positive effects on the welfare of farm animals and. Dog bites receive wide publicity and. Harrison. animal welfare remains a topical subject for those with interests in livestock production. with possible welfare implications. laboratory and companion animals has rapidly increased in Western society during the last 40 years. 1991. irrespective of their involvement in livestock production. The public interest in the welfare of farm. in Australia. In addition to the undeniable beneﬁts that these animals provide to humans.4 The Community’s Views on Animal Welfare Issues Most people accept that humans have a moral obligation towards farm. there is abundant evidence in the literature for pets being treated as family members (Voith.Farm Animal Welfare 25 modern society are regularly confronted with cases of animal suffering. The news media are not reticent in extensively covering animal welfare abuses because of the public interest that these stories generate. In general. 1975) were important in raising this as a topic in the general domain.g. exist within the general community leading to marked and often extreme attitudes on animal welfare issues. so does the predation on native wildlife by domestic cats. leads to legislative change restricting the movements of these animals. in turn. The action of some welfare groups in lobbying and boycotting speciﬁc animal industries or practices is indicative of their views and the strength of these views. Bodsworth and Coleman. via governments. we feel a degree of empathy for our pets.
while attitudes to animals at the individual level inﬂuence how people behave towards animals. which may be limited to the protection of animals from cruelty or may prescribe mandatory standards. 2009). Individuals may also judge a decision or choice of an animal use on the basis of its adherence to reasons or moral principles such as: enhancement of personal character (virtue ethics). some are nevertheless enforced through a number of customer requirements that industries must meet to gain access to markets. In consequence. support for self-interest (egoism). and while these codes generally rely on voluntary compliance. biologists are charged with the responsibility of establishing the facts on how animals biologically respond to the practices under question. 2004). Furthermore. only limited animal welfare research has been conducted to date. conﬂicts have arisen in scientiﬁc circles for several reasons: the deﬁnition of animal welfare and thus the methodology used to assess animal welfare varies among scientists. An individual’s decision on the acceptability or otherwise of a speciﬁc animal use can be a difﬁcult and complex choice. to varying degrees. there are some examples where the codes or some code provisions are incorporated into legislation. As will be discussed shortly. For many. as well as their perception of the utility or instrumental value of the animal (Serpell. in many other countries such protection does not exist. consequences of the choice for everyone. In other Western countries. has a critical role in underpinning our decisions on animal use and the attendant conditions and compromises. the environment and the economy may also affect these decisions. 2007). Decisions on speciﬁc animal use are affected by a number of considerations. this is not always true. and the results of .. Furthermore. attitudes to animals at the community level can also inﬂuence the development of animal-related policy and legislation. many Western countries have introduced codes of practice. but also our duties and obligations to animal users and society in general (Levy. However. In many Western countries there are several mechanisms used to protect the welfare of farm animals (Barnett and Hemsworth. Attitudes to animals appear to be particularly affected by people’s affective or emotional responses to animals.26 Chapter 2 when such diverse views exist in the general community. not just themselves (equal consideration or utilitarianism). laboratory or general community uses of animals. Science. 2004). on these considerations. the impact of the animal use on the animal owner. Gaining a consensus on the welfare implications of a speciﬁc animal use would appear to be an easier task to achieve among scientists than within the general community. There is also a range of animal welfare monitoring schemes in many countries and although the majority of these schemes are voluntary rather than legislated. However. Thus. including scientiﬁc information on the harms and beneﬁts to the animal caused by the animal use (Hemsworth et al. Nevertheless. modern animal ethics embraces not only our duties and obligations to animals. or that good results do not justify using evil means to violate an animal’s rights (rights-based justiﬁcations of equal consideration). livestock industries provide and recommend animal care standards. through broad stakeholder consultation. In some countries there is animal welfare legislation. therefore. whether they relate to farming. governments and others set farm animal welfare recommendations and standards based.
it is difﬁcult for a society or groups to develop a consensus on a defensible policy on an animal welfare issue. including animal welfare standards. This is a limitation. Furthermore. ultimately it is an ethical decision by the general community that will determine acceptable welfare standards for farm. perhaps ﬁltered by opinion leaders. In addition. The problem in developing such guidelines and regulations is to deﬁne what constitutes good welfare or well-being for the animal. Without factual information. that will protect animals from pain and stress. particularly in developed countries. However. companion and laboratory animals. food processors and retailers. and the public’s beliefs are largely acquired from the mass media. because one of the important steps in developing defensible policies on animal care and use is to assemble factual information on the animal’s biological responses to the particular system or treatment.Farm Animal Welfare 27 this welfare research are often complicated and. A society’s attitudes to the use of and obligations to farm. most countries throughout the Western world show similar patterns of attitudes to farm animal welfare. goats. although there is variability among the European Union countries. Without such a deﬁnition. . Dairy cows are seen to be at lower risk and there appear to be no data available on sheep. The Eurobarometer surveys (European Commission. Public attitudes have a signiﬁcant role in determining how people behave. such as producers. research and modern society has increased over time and there is continuing widespread pressure for legislation and regulation. at times. appear contradictory. such as turkeys. 2010). As Teutsch (1987) reported. could jeopardize animal welfare. in turn. companion and laboratory animals will be developed based on emotions without serious regard for objective data and. etc. This. 2007) provide a snapshot of attitudes to animal welfare across the European community. retailers and regulators. inﬂuenced by demographic factors. not only for the general community but also for speciﬁc stakeholders. the development of a clear consensus on an ethically and scientiﬁcally defensible philosophy on animal welfare is obviously difﬁcult. Coleman (2008) concluded that the community generally considers farm animal welfare to be important. The community. there is evidence that community knowledge of animal husbandry practices is limited and that there is both a need and an opportunity to address this properly. affects the commercial viability and even the sustainability of animal industries (Coleman. religion and culture. followed by pigs. both as consumers and as citizens. provides the livestock industries with a ‘licence’ to farm in which standards. at times. notwithstanding the good intentions of most people involved in the process. legislation concerning the care and use of farm. public attitudes about animal welfare are often based on limited knowledge. Coleman also concluded that. Notwithstanding these variations. beef cattle or some other farmed species. and vary over time with economic and ideological changes. companion and laboratory animals are extremely disparate. there are clear within.and between-country variations in the attitudes of people to their obligations towards animals. via governments and. Although science has an important role in providing sound defensible information on how animals respond to a speciﬁc practice. The debate in the general community about the care and use of animals in livestock production. with laying hens seen to be at the greatest welfare risk. are prescribed.
However. As discussed earlier in this section. even though as reviewed in this book. group size. particularly those living in urban areas. The impact of human factors has received less attention from a welfare perspective than housing and husbandry. such as space. While transport is always likely to be stressful. and there is a need to provide them with the basic facts about where their food comes from. 2008). owners of companion animals. 2. There is no doubt that sectors of the general public are increasingly questioning the welfare impact of and the need for some husbandry procedures. may be tailored to the individual and therefore produce change over a relatively short time frame. 2001. The process of informing the community necessarily involves changing beliefs and.. Barnett and Hemsworth. 2003).. targeted education strategies. only travel the minimal distance possible and are appropriately scheduled for slaughter if transported to abattoirs (Barnett et al. 2007). regulatory and retail levels. involves persuasion. including transport drivers and abattoir workers. the design features of group housing systems. and this should be a reﬂection of both community views and current thinking among ethicists.g. 2010). are important and markedly affect animal welfare (Barnett et al. drought) condition are handled appropriately. Probably the only target group that can be educated in the sense of knowledge transfer are students. it can generally be managed by ensuring that animals are ‘ﬁt’ for the journey. in philosophy and in the general community. Mass communication strategies tend to produce change over a long time frame. retailers and the general community. in particular to stakeholder groups. have little exposure to farm animals. government has a role in disseminating the values that should govern animal welfare. there is considerable public interest in animal welfare and so it is useful to brieﬂy review some of the most controversial welfare issues in livestock production. feeding system and ﬂooring. there is a need to ensure that the community is well informed because community views affect decision makers at the political. social contact and choice of stimuli for interaction. and particularly by ensuring that young animals or animals in poor (e. Such knowledge should make children less susceptible to extreme views about animal welfare in farm animals because the knowledge they have acquired will tend to make them more or less resistant to inappropriate persuasion (Coleman. However. possibly because of concerns for reduced animal welfare with restrictions in space. Target groups include stockpeople. 2008). deﬁnitions of welfare . animal laboratory technicians. The public appears to be more concerned about the welfare of pigs and poultry than other farm animals (European Commission. stockpeople have a major impact on the welfare of their livestock. animal handlers post-farm. with considerable consequences for all.5 Deﬁning and Measuring Animal Welfare Because of the widespread use of the term welfare in a number of scientiﬁc disciplines. to this extent. presumably because their housing is viewed as conﬁnement. Conﬁnement of animals appears contentious for many people.28 Chapter 2 Therefore. legislators and regulators. particularly surgical interventions that are likely to cause pain (Coleman. Schoolchildren. In addition.
1. and (iii) the expression of normal or ‘natural’ behaviours. 1997. there are elements of these three concepts in the so-called ‘ﬁve freedoms’. or reﬂect important biological requirements of the animal. many scientists deﬁne and measure animal welfare on the basis of normal biological functioning. immunological defences. it is important to understand the science on which welfare decisions may be made. around the methodology used to assess or judge the welfare of animals. Even within science there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the concept of animal welfare (Fraser.g. pain and other feelings or emotions. physiological stress responses and a variety of behavioural responses. In addition. These concepts of animal welfare and the resulting methodologies will be discussed here. This has been done elsewhere (e. Broom and Johnson. Thus using this concept. Sandøe et al.1 Welfare assessment There are basically three prominent concepts of animal welfare in the literature: the welfare of animals is judged on the basis of: (i) how well the animal is performing from a biological functioning perspective. Furthermore. 2008 . growth and reproduction. which have evolved to motivate behaviour to both avoid harm and facilitate survival. but nevertheless. Because a key focus of this book is the effects of human–animal interactions on farm animal welfare.1 Biological functioning The rationale underpinning this ﬁrst concept is that difﬁcult or inadequate adaptation will generate welfare problems for animals. 2009). it is useful to review the main welfare methodologies and their rationale in order to understand their value and limitations in judging animal welfare. (ii) affective states. the term is often used to avoid being too speciﬁc about the nature of the particular issue (Broom and Johnson. health and freedom from injury. Duncan and Fraser.5. and (ii) the extent to which these coping attempts are succeeding. 1993. The ‘state as regards its attempts to cope’ refers to: (i) how much has to be done in order to cope with the environment and includes biological responses such as the functioning of body repair systems. . the risks to animal welfare are assessed at two levels: the magnitude of the behavioural and physiological responses and the cost(s) to biological ﬁtness of utilizing these responses. Fraser. 2003. 2004) and. reproduction. 2003. such as suffering. which includes the lack of biological costs to the animal. 2. 1993).5. while for others animal welfare can be measured on the basis of animals’ preferences as these preferences are either inﬂuenced by the animal’s emotions.Farm Animal Welfare 29 vary considerably. This uncertainty surrounding the concept of animal welfare and how it should be judged does not diminish the rigour of the research utilizing methodologies or measurements arising from the various concepts of animal welfare. 2.. Broom (1986) deﬁnes the welfare of an animal as ‘its state as regards its attempts to cope with its environment’. which were proposed by the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council (1993) to protect the welfare of animals. consequently. For example. Barnett and Hemsworth. such as deterioration in growth efﬁciency.
The concept of biological ﬁtness generally applies to natural populations and refers to ‘ﬁtter’ animals having a greater genetic contribution to subsequent generations (Pianka, 1974) as a consequence of their ability to successfully survive, grow and reproduce. Although the last attribute may not always apply to individual animals on the farm because reproduction is either controlled or absent for many farm animals, the ability to grow, survive and reproduce could be considered measurements of ﬁtness within the limits of the management system (Barnett et al., 2001). Broom’s (1986) deﬁnition is similar to the one recently endorsed by the 172 member countries of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), which has an animal welfare mandate that covers livestock (OIE, 2008):
Animal welfare means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientiﬁc evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behavior, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and veterinary treatment, appropriate shelter, management, nutrition, humane handling and humane slaughter/killing. Animal welfare refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal receives is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment.
Thus, a key precept in this concept is that animals use a range of behavioural and physiological responses to assist them in coping with environmental conditions, and while biological regulation in response to environmental change is constantly occurring, adaptation is not always possible. When homeostasis (i.e. constancy of the internal environment, which varies only within tolerable limits) fails, there is damage, disease or even death (Broom and Johnson, 1993). Therefore, difﬁcult or inadequate adaptation generates animal welfare problems. While this concept has support within animal welfare science, the rationale for it requires further elaboration. In examining this concept, we ﬁrst need to consider the two key components of Broom’s (1986) deﬁnition of welfare, that is, how much has to be done in order to cope with the environment and the success of the coping attempts. Animals use a wide range of biological responses, behavioural and physiological, to both regulate their lives and deal with difﬁculties. These behavioural and physiological responses are adaptive responses that may help an individual to cope with its environment. While failure to adapt may ultimately result in death, less severe challenges can result in less serious biological costs, such as impaired growth, reproduction and health, and so both sets of consequences demonstrate that difﬁcult or inadequate adaptation will generate welfare problems for animals. The development of this discussion has been substantially aided by the lucid accounts presented by Broom and Johnson (1993) and Moberg (2000). The stress response commences as soon as the central nervous system perceives a potential challenge (stressor) to homeostasis, followed by the development of a biological response or defence that consists of some combination of the four general biological defence responses: behavioural responses, responses of the autonomic nervous system, responses of the neuroendocrine system and responses of the immune system. For many stressors, the ﬁrst and, at times, the
Farm Animal Welfare
most biologically economical and effective response is a behavioural one. In concert with the behavioural responses, the physiological responses that can be used by the animal are elicited basically in three series of events, with the full elicitation of these dependent on the time of exposure to the stressor and the success of the biological responses in coping with the challenge. Two key physiological responses that involve both neural and hormonal systems are the activation of the sympathetic–adrenal–medullary (SAM) and the hypothalamic–pituitary– adrenal (HPA) axes. A diagrammatic representation of the SAM and HPA axes and their hormones is presented in Fig. 2.2. Together, the responses of the SAM and HPA axes result in what is commonly termed the stress response, which encompasses one of the body’s major coping mechanisms to environmental disturbance.
Brain Perceived threat
Hypothalamus CRH AVP
Pituitary gland Spinal cord
Adrenaline noradrenaline Corticosteroids
Fig. 2.2. A diagrammatic representation of the sympathetic–adrenal–medullary (SAM) and the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axes and their hormones (courtesy of L.E. Edwards). ACTH = adrenocorticotrophic hormone; AVP = arginine vasopressin; CRH = corticotrophin releasing hormone.
The SAM axis response is the ﬁrst series of physiological events and is characterized by a rapid, speciﬁc response of the autonomic nervous system and consequent secretions of catecholamines (adrenaline and noradrenaline, also called epinephrine and norepinephrine). These physiological adjustments are the immediate or ‘emergency’ response proposed by Walter Cannon (Cannon, 1914) as the ‘ﬁght or ﬂight’ response. The autonomic nervous system controls functions such as the digestive and cardiovascular systems, respiration and thermoregulation, and consists of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems, which have opposing effects. For example, the activation of the sympathetic nervous system, in which noradrenaline is a synaptic transmitter, inhibits digestive functions and stimulates cardiac output, whereas activation of the parasympathetic nervous system does the opposite. A major and important function of adrenaline is to quickly provide energy in the form of glucose from liver and muscle glycogen, a process known as glycogenolysis, and free fatty acids from lipolysis of adipose tissue (Murray et al., 2003). Thus the SAM axis response with the secretions of catecholamines (adrenaline and noradrenaline) is the principal regulatory mechanism that allows the animal to immediately meet physical or emotional challenges by its effects on metabolic rate, cardiac function, blood pressure, peripheral circulation, respiration, visual acuity and energy availability and use. If the responses of the SAM axis to a stressor are insufﬁcient, there is another series of events involving the HPA axis and corticosteroid hormones. This starts with the brain perceiving a stressor and the hypothalamus producing corticotrophin releasing hormone (CRH) in response to the stimulus. This results in the release of adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) from the adenohypophysis (anterior pituitary). ACTH is transported in the blood to the adrenal cortex where corticosteroid synthesis and release occurs. In some species, arginine vasopressin (AVP), another hormone from the hypothalamus, has a role in stimulating ACTH secretion (Matteri et al., 2000). Corticosteroids are not stored in the adrenal glands and have to be synthesized. There are two predominant corticosteroids: cortisol is the predominant corticosteroid of most mammals, including humans, and of bony ﬁsh, and corticosterone is the major corticosteroid in rodents, birds, reptiles, amphibians and cartilaginous ﬁsh (Chester Jones and Henderson, 1976). The half-life of cortisol (i.e. the time that it remains in a biologically active state before it is degraded) is about 1.5–2 h but its mode of transport in the blood provides some protection against its degradation and hence provides a ‘store’ of cortisol (Barnett, 2003). It is partitioned in the blood in three ways. Between 60% and 80% of the total cortisol is bound to albumin, which has a low afﬁnity but a high capacity, meaning that while it is weakly bound, a considerable amount can be bound. From 10% to 20% is bound to transcortin or corticosteroid binding globulin, which has a high afﬁnity but low capacity, meaning that it binds a small amount but strongly (Westphal, 1971). This tightly bound form provides a reservoir in which there is only a slow turnover. Only about 10% of total cortisol is free in the blood and this is the biologically active component. The concept of biologically active cortisol (or corticosterone) is important as it has implications for determining the magnitude of a stress response and its welfare implications; this important consideration will be discussed at the end of this section.
Farm Animal Welfare
The second series of responses, called the acute stress response (Selye, 1946, 1976), is a corticosteroid-dependent mechanism and thus the HPA axis is central to its function. The adrenal cortex and, in particular, the cortical cells that secrete the corticosteroids are controlled by higher centres of the hormonal system: the pituitary gland which, in turn, is controlled by the hypothalamus at the base of the brain. The acute response may last from minutes to hours and has the major function of providing glucose from food or muscle protein (gluconeogenesis) for the required increased metabolic performance. Therefore, during this stage a steady state is achieved in which the increased demand for energy is met by increased metabolic performance. This physiological state of stress disappears on removal of the stressor with generally no ill effects other than a depletion of energy reserves. The activation of the SAM and HPA axes is obviously an effective mechanism to assist the animal in adapting to changes in its environment. The physiological outcomes include adjustments in metabolic rate, cardiac function, blood pressure, peripheral circulation, respiration, visual acuity, and energy availability and use that allow the animal to meet physical and/or emotional challenges. In the short term, corticosteroids also reduce some of the damaging effects of the immune response, such as repressing the inﬂammatory response. There are also some behavioural adaptations as a consequence of the short-term activation of the SAM and HPA axes, such as increased arousal and alertness, and increased cognition, vigilance and focused attention (Mendl, 1999; Kaltas and Chrousos, 2007), that should assist the animal to search, scrutinize and remember threatening or rewarding situations. Some of the behavioural and physical adaptations that occur during acute stress are listed in Table 2.1. If the stressor continues, the response proceeds to the third series of events, which is the chronic stress response, and it is this series of events that can have serious consequences for the animal. The chronic stress response is also a corticosteroid-dependent mechanism, but while in the acute phase the effects are potentially beneﬁcial, this chronic activation of the HPA axis comes at a physiological cost to the animal, such as a decreased metabolic efﬁciency,
Table 2.1. Behavioural and physical adaptation during acute stress (modiﬁed from Kaltas and Chrousos, 2007). Behavioural adaptation: adaptive redirection of behaviour Increased arousal and alertness Increased cognition, vigilance and focused attention Heightened analgesia Euphoria (highly pleasant mood) or dysphoria (highly unpleasant mood) Increased temperature Suppression of appetite and feeding behaviour Physical adaptation: adaptive redirection of energy Oxygen and nutrients to the central nervous system and stressed body sites Altered cardiovascular tone and increased blood pressure and heart rate Increased respiratory rate Increased glycogenolysis, gluconeogenesis and lipolysis Inhibition of growth and reproduction Containment of the inﬂammatory/immune response
. the breakdown of muscle protein under the catabolic effects of ACTH and corticosteroids (Elsasser et al. Indeed. may indicate difﬁcult or inadequate adaptation. that has broad. A predominant feature of a chronic activation of the HPA axis is increased basal secretion of corticosteroids with a loss in diurnal regulation of the axis (Harbuz and Lightman. Corticosteroids also support the synthesis and action of adrenaline in stimulating glycogenolysis (i. respectively. Tilbrook et al. 1992.e. and it is these biological and ﬁtness effects that reﬂect both the magnitude of the stress response and the welfare implications. together with detailed reviews by Moberg (2000) and Barnett (2003). 2007). describe the typical physiological responses in animals under chronic stress. restrained or isolated (Blecha. and thus challenges to homeostasis that result in such neuroendocrine responses clearly have implications for animal welfare. 1992). measuring both these behavioural and physiological responses to a stressor (Fig. 2000).34 Chapter 2 impaired immunity and reduced reproductive performance. long-lasting effects on the body. as well as the ﬁtness consequences of these responses for the animal. 2000). metabolism and the immune system.. longlasting effects on the body. clearly affords an insight into the risks to the animal’s welfare. cardiovascular function. 2000. In other words. 2000). While some component of behaviour is likely to be involved in every stress response. redirected behaviours and stereotypies. 2000). provision of glucose from liver and muscle glycogen for the required increased metabolic performance) and lipolysis (provision of energy in the form of free fatty acids from the breakdown of adipose tissue) (Matteri et al. studies using various stress models show that factors other than corticosteroids may also be involved in the stress-induced immunosuppression observed in animals that are transported. While corticosteroids can suppress the immune system (Blecha. As discussed earlier. It is this sustained elevation in free corticosteroids. There is also a direct involvement of the immune system. The earlier discussion. for example. behavioural responses may not be appropriate or effective for all situations.3). It is clear that the hormones secreted from the HPA axis have broad. which reﬂect the challenge confronting the animal.. as with long-term neuroendocrine responses. increased basal secretion of corticosteroids has signiﬁcant ﬁtness consequences for the animal. There is also involvement of the somatotrophic and thyroid axes and of other hypothalamic and pituitary hormones such as arginine vasopressin and prolactin. Therefore. While the role and actions of corticosteroids in acute and chronic stress responses are well known.. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have also been implicated in failed reproduction (Clarke et al. Therefore. 2. such as decreased metabolic efﬁciency. this is not to imply that the HPA axis is the only neuroendocrine axis affected by stressors. the concept of biologically active cortisol is important because of its implications for determining the magnitude of a stress response and its consequences. impaired immunity and reduced reproductive performance. 2000) and immune competency (Blecha. together with changes in other hormones. Kaltas and Chrousos.. the longterm activation of the HPA axis can have marked effects on the efﬁciency of growth with. How serious these costs are depends on how long the animal is required to divert physiological resources to maintain homeostasis.
One common criticism is that fundamental requirements do not adequately include emotions or feelings. emotions such as fear can have marked effects on these biological responses and animal ﬁtness. thus explaining why emotional insults activate a stress response (Kaltas and Chrousos. the associated sensation of emotion and the visceral and behavioural responses (Dantzer. function to assist animals in avoiding potentially harmful situations or recognizing potentially beneﬁcial situations (Cabanac. 2003). a sustained elevation in basal cortisol concentrations. stress physiology and ﬁtness. clearly indicate the profound effects of fear on avoidance behaviour. Indeed. and others consider that the mental state of an animal is an integral component of its biological state (Dantzer and Mormède.3. 1979). or at least their physiological component. 2007). Emotional responses are produced in the limbic system. 1983). and together with a range of learning processes. However. including those involved in the initiation and maintenance of the stress response. as discussed in Chapter 3. for example. Implanted catheters enable blood samples to be collected quickly and simply without inﬂuencing corticosteroid concentrations of the samples. This concept of animal welfare has been criticized on several grounds. and thus emotions are expected to inﬂuence the animal’s behavioural and physiological responses to challenges. Emotions are part of the body’s regulatory system. A consistent ﬁnding in biological psychiatry is that the HPA axis physiology is altered in humans with major depression (see Parker et al. Furthermore. including cognitive processes. which projects to several parts of the brain.Farm Animal Welfare 35 Fig. this would only be valid if emotions are independent of other biological processes. The effects of handling of farm animals. may modulate memory formation in several ways (Reisberg and . The pigs in this photograph have indwelling catheters and the collars around the animals’ necks protect and store the external section of the catheters and their attached taps.. 2. 1988). this is unlikely. emotions. Emotions have several components.
2. Long-term behavioural responses such as stereotypies. circulatory and endocrine systems. it is axiomatic that the biological responses that animals use when attempting to cope with difﬁculties include emotional responses. including those of the nervous. injury and health. presumably via their effects on hormones of the HPA and SAM axes. arteriosclerosis and a suppression of the immune system. reproduction. are ‘harmful’ behavioural responses that have clear biological costs for animals such as physical injury. 2004) without recognizing that this concept considers not only the magnitude of the stress responses but more importantly the consequences of these stress responses (Barnett and Hemsworth. Furthermore. . These attempts have been used to criticize the biological functioning-based concept of animal welfare (Duncan. Failure to adapt to the stressor can adversely affect an animal’s ﬁtness because of adverse effects on nitrogen balance. demonstrated by bar biting in sows (Fig. A pregnant sow exhibiting the stereotypy of bar biting. 2. While animals utilize the stress response to try to deal with difﬁculties or challenges to homeostasis. As discussed earlier in this section. weaving and wind sucking in stabled horses. Studies principally on laboratory rodents have shown that acute stressors. Thus. may enhance memory formation and recall (Mendl. The effects on health include ulcers. immune. in addition to a broad range of physiological responses.4). and particularly those of the HPA axis. Early attempts in the 1960s and 1970s to study animal welfare focused on measuring animal stress. 2003). 1999). scrutinize and remember threatening stimuli or situations.4. and some effects may be permanent even if the stressor is subsequently removed (Moberg. the focus of Fig. hypertension.36 Chapter 2 Heuer. 2000). and pacing. some of these effects can be viewed as having adaptive value in helping the animal to search. animals also utilize behavioural responses to try to deal with these challenges. Thus. it must be emphasized that in terms of welfare it is the consequences for the animal that are important. 1995). digestive complications and the loss of production.
and increases in positive emotions. In conclusion. and the stress response. health and ﬁtness responses to study animal welfare (Mellor and Stafford. 1974) and voluntary exercise in humans (Sutton and Casey.Farm Animal Welfare 37 the welfare concept of biological functioning extends to the consequences of the stress response (and other adaptive responses. such as comfort and pleasure . Determination of the magnitude of acute stress responses is useful therefore in identifying improved or alternative management techniques.1. as indicated earlier in this section and emphasized by Moberg (2000). such as stereotypies and redirected behaviours. but acute stress responses are. In these cases. by deﬁnition. 2000). 1975) both result in increased plasma corticosteroid concentrations. under study) can be undertaken to assess the biological functioning of the animals. difﬁcult or inadequate adaptation will affect the ﬁtness of the animal through a range of long-lasting behavioural and neuroendocrine responses. health and ﬁtness responses of animals to the condition of interest (i. and thus care needs to be taken not to interpret all acute stress responses as signifying reduced welfare. fast shearing is more stressful than slow shearing and herding by people is more stressful than using dogs (Kilgour and de Langen. such as behaviour) rather than the response per se.2 Affective states In general. reproduce and remain healthy and free of injury. shearing is a more severe stressor than yarding. husbandry and handling. it is the biological cost of stress that is the key to understanding the welfare implications for the animal.5. fear and frustration. while the biological cost includes adverse effects on the animal’s ability to grow. 1970). These behavioural and physiological responses include abnormal behaviours. activation of the SAM and HPA axes is an appropriate response in mobilizing the body’s reserves to support mating and exercise. short term and do not generally have long-term detrimental consequences. a broad examination of the behavioural. the risks to the welfare of an animal imposed by the condition of interest can be assessed at two levels: (i) the magnitude of the behavioural and physiological responses. this second concept deﬁnes animal welfare in terms of emotions and thus it emphasizes reductions in negative emotions. This approach to welfare assessment has been used by scientists to examine the effects of housing. physiological..e. For example. physiological. the rationale underpinning this concept is that difﬁcult or inadequate adaptation generates welfare problems for animals. For example. A broad range of biological responses are also used in Chapters 3. studies examining surgical husbandry procedures have used a broad examination of the behavioural. 2. such as pain. The duration and intensity of the acute stress response can be used to address speciﬁc management procedures that minimize acute stress responses. in which the effects of handling on animal welfare are reviewed and considered. mating in rats (Szechtman et al. respectively. Using this concept of biological functioning. Acute stress responses can occur to pleasant as well as unpleasant stimuli and this is often used to criticize the use of corticosteroids to measure stress. However. and (ii) the biological cost of these responses. For example. thus. In other words. 5 and 6. based on plasma cortisol concentrations in sheep.
these can be positive (e. frustration. boredom and discomfort) and are accompanied by a variety of behavioural and physiological signs (e. have as their antecedents some discrepancy or conﬂict between the state of the world and the expectations of the individual. The classic view is that emotions. ill health and stress. anger. pleasure. Mandler. Dawkins (1977) also suggests that it is reasonable to assume that subjective feelings evolved because animals that possessed them were ﬁtter than those that did not. Animal behaviourists generally consider that non-human animals are restricted to a few basic emotions such as anger. contentment and relief) or negative (e. Dantzer. It is accepted that humans have a great variety of emotions. the question is still raised by some as to whether other non-human animals experience emotions or simply behave in an emotional fashion (Dawkins. Although there do not appear to be relevant data. Higher organisms (vertebrates and higher invertebrates) have evolved ‘feelings’ or subjective affective states that provide more ﬂexible means for motivating behaviour to meet these needs. Any discrepancy or any interruption of expectations or of intended actions leads to the associated sensation of the emotion or feelings. and may even die. facial expressions and increased heart rate and adrenaline concentrations). Fraser and Duncan (1998) have suggested that negative feelings are inﬂuential when there is an immediate threat. depending on the cognitive evaluation of this discrepancy or conﬂict between the state of the world and the expectations of the individual. the organism will show symptoms of atrophy. All living organisms have certain needs that have to be satisﬁed for the organism to survive. 1981). it is possible that emotions have reinforcing properties. For example. while positive reinforcement strengthens a behaviour as a result of the addition of a rewarding stimulus immediately following the behaviour. pain. for example. 1981. to show pity to other species because there would be no clear adaptive advantage if they did (Bolles. 1981). there is no reason to expect animals. punishment weakens a behaviour because a negative condition is experienced immediately following the behaviour. both positive and negative. which is either positive or negative. 1997). and if these needs are not met. 1988). Increases in pleasurable emotions would be expected to be rewarding and the cessation of negative emotions would be . joy and happiness (Bolles. This associated sensation of emotion. fear. Furthermore. This is predicated on the view that animals probably only have emotions to deal with certain kinds of survival problems for which there is some strong evolutionary beneﬁt. fear.g. while we might expect animals to show fear because of the adaptive value of being frightened in a dangerous situation. in turn. grow and reproduce. Furthermore. the view of emotions in both the animal behaviour and psychology literature highlights the linkage between visceral arousal and cognitive processes (Bolles. Duncan (2004) has described the argument that animal welfare ultimately concerns animal feelings or emotions as follows. while positive feelings motivate behaviour when there is a long-term beneﬁt in performing the behaviour but no immediate need.g. However. is linked with undifferentiated visceral (autonomic) arousal and behavioural responses.g. Negative reinforcement strengthens a behaviour as a consequence of an aversive condition being stopped or avoided by the behaviour. 1981. 2006).38 Chapter 2 (Duncan and Fraser.
Over the past 30 years there has been growing interest in the measurement of the preferences of farm. Thus by investigating preferences there is the opportunity to identify important biological requirements of the animal. For example. 1998. It is clear that these two views on the value of preference testing are similar in that Duncan (2004) has argued that higher organisms have evolved feelings to motivate behaviour in order for the organism to survive. but this paradigm offers a promising approach to the study of the behavioural concomitants of positive emotions. Thus. (2009) produced anticipatory behaviours in hens by using food rewards. owing to a complex interplay of internal and external factors. While each emotion may reﬂect a different pattern of arousal.. Duncan. Panksepp. using different approaches. grow and reproduce. 1993). have been conducted since. the visceral response to many emotions is reasonably uniform in animals. It is obviously a major challenge to study and understand emotions in animals. The ﬁrst reports of animal preference testing appeared in the literature in the 1970s (e. understanding animal preferences allows inferences to be drawn on animal welfare. proponents of the concept of affective states advocate that because animal preferences are inﬂuenced by animal emotions and that preference tests can indirectly measure emotions. The difﬁculties in studying emotions as though they were objective states of bodily arousal are well recognized in the literature (Cacioppo et al. but the aim of these decisions is to basically maintain homeostasis and optimize ﬁtness. in essentially the same way whether the arousal is sexual. 1976) and many preferences studies. 2005). Hughes and Black. Moe et al. 1996. 1993). they have yet to demonstrate neuropharmacologically that this anticipation is a positive emotional state. which are prime determinants of its welfare (Duncan and Petherick. 1973. Hughes. The rationale for using animal preference tests to study animal welfare is basically twofold. although there have been some promising recent developments in the comparative study of emotions which show that there are many homologous neural systems involved in similar emotional functions in both humans and other mammals. Most animals react physiologically. In an attempt to establish a paradigm to investigate positive emotional states in laying hens. fear provoking or there is the anticipation of play or food. 1976. Animal emotions have been considered inaccessible to scientiﬁc investigation because they have been described as human subjective experiences or even as illusory concepts outside the realm of scientiﬁc inquiry (Panksepp. The simplest preference study involves allowing the animal to make a choice between two situations in which the resource is varied. at least in the short term. and perhaps in other vertebrates (LeDoux. laboratory and zoo animals in order to answer questions about animal welfare. Hughes (1975) found that laying hens preferred a spacious cage to a conﬁned cage and that neither time of day nor strain of bird was inﬂuential in . 1998).Farm Animal Welfare 39 expected to be negatively reinforcing. While not contrary to this approach. others propose that preferences are likely to reﬂect important biological requirements of the animal and thus optimize ﬁtness (Broom and Johnson. Behavioural decisions by animals will ﬂuctuate over time. 2004).g. Some scientists argue that animal preferences can be utilized on the basis that these preferences are inﬂuenced by the animal’s emotions (or feelings). particularly on farm animals. 1991. Dawkins.
some have argued that in addition to establishing what an animal prefers. Rushen (1986) studied the avoidance of sheep to electro-immobilization. 1988). their preference was not strong enough to outweigh the attraction of food. Duncan. Matthews and Ladewig (1994) studied the behavioural demand functions of pigs for the resources of food. For example. 1986) and ramp design (Phillips et al. It was found that while the demand for opening the pen door was highly elastic (i. A Y-maze apparatus that allows a choice between access to two options has often been used to provide information about speciﬁc features in the environment. and Fraser and Matthews (1997) concluded that the usefulness of preference tests to answer questions about animal welfare is limited by three main issues: (i) preference tests should adequately reﬂect the animal’s preference. Dawkins (1983) also suggested that quantitative measures of the importance of resources for animals can be derived from measures of demand elasticity. 1994).g. it is important to understand the strength of the preference (e. required for access to each reinforcer (resource) was systematically varied. have been used to study the animal’s level of motivation to access or to avoid the situation being tested. a procedure in which a pulsed. lowvoltage current can be used to immobilize the animal. Preference tests have been used to measure both the choice for and the avoidance of options or environments. 1977. restraint methods (e. and she concluded that in both experiments there was no evidence that hens regarded litter as a necessity.e. Consequently. Sheep were trained to associate a location with a speciﬁc treatment and avoidance was assessed based on the effort required to move them repeatedly to the treatment location. work effort. Dawkins (1983) varied the price paid for access to litter by increasing the duration of feed withdrawal before the test. experiments have incorporated varying levels of cost (e. To address the question of the strength of an animal’s preference. aversion learning techniques have been used to study the animal’s motivation to avoid husbandry and handling treatments. such as ﬂooring on raceways (Hutson. using operant conditioning techniques in which the animal must learn to perform a response (such as pecking at a key or pushing through a weighted door. Furthermore. to gain access to a resource). The amount of work. 1978). in the form of pushing a plate. For example.g. 1994). social contact and a stimulus change (door opening). the willingness of the pigs to access the resource declined as the effort increased). time and relinquishing a desirable resource) associated with gaining access to a resource or avoiding aversive stimulation. While the consistent choice or preference of one resource over another or others indicates the animal’s relative preference. the demand for food was inelastic and the demand for social contact was intermediate. ‘behavioural demand’ studies. It was found over repeated trials that sheep showed increasing avoidance of a location in which they were restrained with electro-immobilization rather than of a location in which they were restrained without it. 1983. 1981). Dawkins.. Pollard et al. For example.g. The initial preference studies stimulated considerable scientiﬁc debate relating to conceptual and methodological difﬁculties (Dawkins. .. Matthews and Ladewig. She found that although hens preferred litter to wire ﬂoors.40 Chapter 2 this choice. handling treatments (Rushen.
respectively. plastic coated metal mesh. laying hens with experience of cages initially preferred this environment to a free-range run (Dawkins. (1991. using operant conditioning techniques to measure the motivation of pigs for food and straw. or if the animal is required to chose between short. The hen’s behaviour on entering the nest simply reﬂects its motivation at the time and not the future consequences (Duncan. For example. there is no food or water and it is handled to be released. The studies by Phillips et al.and long-term beneﬁts. rather than the animal’s ultimate requirements or those necessary for survival. 1997). Concerns have been raised about the operant responses used to quantify the level of demand in behavioural demand studies. 1984). and of mice for a running wheel. found that the social context at the time of testing affected motivation to access these resources. prolonged testing. growth and reproduction (Lawrence and Illius. Similarly. the motivation of mink to gain access to resources is affected by whether or not they can see the resources (Warburton and Mason. 1977). Preference tests measure an animal’s choice behaviour at a point in time and such measurements run the risk of failing to account for interactions of different motivational states that may inﬂuence the behaviour of the animal over time (Hutson. Pedersen et al. the preferences waned as the animals gained experience with the alternatives.Farm Animal Welfare 41 (ii) they need to establish how strongly an animal prefers a chosen option. Preferences for speciﬁc resources may also be affected by the context in which the animals are tested. cognitive and affective capacity. this short-term choice may reﬂect the animal’s proximate (immediate or present) requirements. Using the example of hens required to peck a key in order to activate a motorized barrier and enlarge . Prior experience can be controlled in preference tests by using naïve animals. (2002) and Sherwin (2003). For example. a hen continues to return to a ‘trapnest’ to lay eggs even though it is assumed that the trap-nest is aversive because the hen cannot escape. or bare mesh ﬂoors) varied. In both cases. It is useful brieﬂy to consider these and other concerns here. and (iii) preferences may not correspond to welfare if the choices fall outside the animal’s sensory. Fraser and Matthews (1997) suggest that certain operant responses required to be performed to obtain the reward may not be appropriate for certain types of reward. 2003). Indeed. Dawkins (2003) has proposed the development of in situ methods of assessment to allow for the effects of factors such as the animal’s development history and the precise commercial conditions experienced by the animal. Preferences may vary with familiarity. 1978). Furthermore. avoids a non-preferred one or is motivated to perform a behaviour. familiarizing the animals with the resources prior to testing or. The context in which the animals are studied therefore should relate to the commercial conditions to which the experimental question is directed. as Fraser and Matthews (1997) suggest. Preference tests therefore need to be comprehensive enough to identify these sources of variation (Fraser and Matthews. 1997). There is also evidence that the stimuli from the test resources at the time of testing may affect motivation for the resources under study. 1996) showed that previous experience strongly inﬂuenced the sows’ initial choice of farrowing crates in which design (solid or open sided crates) and ﬂooring (concrete.
particularly on the occurrence of abnormal behaviour. would have provided a better measure of the hens’ motivation for additional space. are capable of selecting a mixed diet that can ameliorate health issues.. Wu and Ravindran. such as lameness in meat (broiler) chickens (Danbury et al. or that allow the optimization of energy and protein requirements for growth and health (Rutter et al. Kennedy and Baldwin (1972) found that a number of pigs had repeated bouts of illness after drinking large amounts of sugar solution. . There are also examples where farm animals. 1995). Fraser and Matthews (1997) recommend that experiments should be repeated using different methods when there are questions about the appropriateness of the required operant response. 1994). such as walking.g. if given appropriate ‘choices’. The individual’s concept of animal welfare clearly underscores the methodology used to judge or measure animal welfare. 2000).42 Chapter 2 their cages. 1978). Fraser and Matthews (1997) recognize that limitations in using preference tests arise when animals are exposed to potential dangers or beneﬁts that are beyond their sensory or affective capacity. or if the choice requires a level or type of cognitive ability that the animal does not possess. yet a degree of exercise has been shown to have a longer term beneﬁcial effect on leg strength (Marchant and Broom. Furthermore. 1994. clarifying the conceptual link between animal preferences and animal welfare is an issue for some. should this be expected in domestic animals? There are examples in livestock production where farm animals can learn to avoid foods that are associated with gastrointestinal distress (Provenza. and on stress physiology and health. successfully evolved in the environment). as with biological functioning. as commented by a number of authors (e. while studies of motivation can provide compelling evidence that the performance of some behaviour (or preference) may be important to the animal. 2004). 2004). They suggest that the best safeguard is to base preference tests on the types of choices that the species arguably evolved the capacity to make and that the individual animals are accustomed to making. there are also examples to the contrary where choice may not promote the animal’s health and survival. Widowski and Hemsworth (2008) recommend that. they questioned whether an alternative response. However. However. 1996). The conceptual basis of the link between animal preferences and welfare has been criticized because animals may not necessarily prefer or be motivated to obtain resources that are truly in their best interests (Duncan. natural selection and behavioural development are expected to produce a set of environmental preferences that promote the health and survival of the individual and offspring. Fraser and Matthews. Conﬁned sows show minimal demand for exercise (Ladewig and Matthews. Using operant conditioning techniques to study the demand of pigs for varying concentrations of sweet solutions. preference research should be integrated with other measures used in animal welfare research. For an animal of a wild genotype living in the wild (i. are necessary to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the impact of restriction on animal welfare.e. that provides physical characteristics to optimize organ development such as gizzard growth in chickens (Cummings.. But without such natural selection. 1997). In conclusion. additional evidence.
The following commentary by Martel (2002. as aptly noted by Dawkins (1980). However. This issue of what is the natural environment for domestic animals is put into sharp focus when we consider the history of the domestic hen as described by Appleby et al. This is a tropical species conﬁned to forested areas and to thick vegetation.1. including layers that were laying an egg every day. It is believed to have been domesticated over 8000 years ago and the modern hen is regarded as a subspecies.Farm Animal Welfare 43 2. the concept of an animal’s ‘nature’ would need to be more speciﬁc before it could give guidance in assessing animal welfare. 16) provides a less optimistic view than the populist romantic view of animals living in the wild: ‘Animals in the wild lead lives of compulsion and necessity within an unforgiving social hierarchy in an environment where the supply of fear is high and the supply of food low and where territory must constantly be defended and parasites forever endured. For example. There is broad agreement within science that it is often difﬁcult to attribute actual suffering when the expression of certain behaviours is prevented or is absent when it would be expected to be present (Dawkins. of the three concepts described in this chapter to assess welfare. as discussed by Dawkins (1980).5. they nest on buildings.3 The expression of normal or ‘natural’ behaviours The principle underlying this concept of animal welfare is that animals should be raised in ‘natural’ environments and allowed to behave in ‘natural’ ways. as suggested by Dawkins (1980). gulls have changed their habits and now live voluntarily in very artiﬁcial environments created by humans. The more general idea that we can improve animal welfare by respecting the ‘nature’ of animals is. Thorpe (1965) argued that animals need to perform all the behavioural patterns that are displayed by free-living members of their species and that they suffer if they cannot display all these behaviours. ‘wild’ behaviour often represents an animal’s efforts to survive in a life and death struggle or contest. The view that animals should perform their full ‘repertoire’ of behaviour was common in early welfare research and is still common today.’ Thus the ‘natural behaviours’ that are desirable or undesirable in terms of animal welfare require deﬁnition. 2003). The progenitor of the domestic fowl was the red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus). p. the hen was valued as a sacriﬁcial or religious bird or for cockﬁghting. the sea is no longer an essential part of seagulls’ ‘nature’ even though they have evolved to live in such close association with the sea: in the past 30 years. and therefore some ‘natural’ behavioural responses are adaptations to cope with extreme adverse situations. as often seen in the promotion of so-called ‘welfare friendly’ production systems. subspecies of which are still found in Asia. together with the rationale for their inclusion or exclusion. the ‘nature of species’ approach has the least scientiﬁc credibility because it fails to deﬁne both ‘natural’ and the welfare risks if either such ‘natural’ conditions are not provided or there are no opportunities to behave in ‘natural’ ways. viz. This industry collapsed with the decline of the Roman Empire about 2000 years . However. During early domestication. To date. (1992). roost on playing ﬁelds and forage in garbage dumps. Gallus gallus domesticus. The Romans developed specialized breeds. Furthermore. intuitively appealing. there has been no attempt to reach agreed deﬁnitions or provide rationales. There are some obvious shortcomings with this approach as a criterion for animal welfare.
the ongoing selection for ﬁghting ability has resulted in a bird that is abundant but is difﬁcult to manage in modern production systems. Indeed. aggression and stereotypies (EFSA. While there is little evidence that domestication has resulted in the loss of behaviours from the species’ repertoire or that the basic structure of the motor patterns for such behaviours has been changed. Domestication has resulted in behavioural changes between wild and domestic stocks. the ‘natural behaviours’ that are desirable or undesirable in terms of animal welfare require deﬁnition. and . injury and disease. Thus. behavioural differences between wild and domestic stocks in nearly all cases are quantitative in character and best explained by differences in response thresholds of behaviour to. 2010). For example. These comparisons are difﬁcult because of problems in both determining an appropriate wild population and interpreting differences between wild and domestic populations under one environment. However. the concept of an animal’s ‘nature’ would need to be more speciﬁc before it could give guidance in assessing animal welfare. both reared in either captive or wild environments. responses that are also utilized in the biological functioning-based concept of animal welfare.0 kg as quickly as at 5 weeks of age. for example. from pain. This quick history of the domestic hen raises questions on providing ‘a natural environment’. a natural environment for a tropical species? Furthermore. 2002). 2005). the laying hen routinely requires beak-trimming to control feather pecking and cannibalism. we now have two modern hybrids. the egg-laying bird that reaches point of lay at 16–18 weeks of age at a body weight around 1..8–2. that is freedom from hunger and thirst. but have followed about 8000 years of selection for ﬁghting capabilities and a 100 years of intense selection for production attributes? Is an outdoor area with relatively little structural diversity. except for cockﬁghting. based on both its adaptability and its social behaviour (e. while also having increased growth. sexual or novel stimuli.g. indicate that farmed salmon show fewer predator responses. together with the rationale for their inclusion or exclusion. for example. it lived in small groups). humans and environmental conditions (Price. studies of farmed and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). After this initial domestication.44 Chapter 2 ago and was not resumed until the 20th century. 2004. while the wild bird was theoretically an appropriate species to domesticate. What is the natural environment of a young bird selected for meat production or an adult hen selected for egg laying. Adaptation to the captive environment is achieved through both genetic changes occurring over generations. More recently the emphasis has been on behavioural indicators of poor coping such as fearfulness. Lambton et al. in the early 1900s there were only six breeds in England. As a consequence of this period of rapid selection. in nature or in captivity. except perhaps for some grass. increased disease resistance and decreased stress responses (Price. particularly in large group production systems (Appleby et al. and the meat bird that reaches a slaughter weight of about 2. Similarly. there was little selection for many centuries. 2002).0 kg and lays close to an egg a day. as generalizations may lead us astray and achieve the opposite of what is intended. The so-called ‘ﬁve freedoms’. 2002). and from fear and distress. from discomfort.. and environmental stimulation and experiences during an animal’s lifetime (Price. both of which are the same species. but this increased to about 70 breeds by 1980.
There has been considerable argument at the community level and among philosophers and scientists about the extent to which humans are entitled to use animals for a .g. 2000). there are several commonalities in the rationale for two of the concepts of animal welfare: biological functioning and affective states (Barnett and Hemsworth. include aspects of all three of the animal welfare concepts described above. until science can broadly agree on the best methodology or methodologies to evaluate animal welfare. However. reproduction. The basis of the methodology used by scientists to assess animal welfare should routinely be provided so that individuals using science in their decision making appreciate both the rationale for the methodology and its limitations (Fraser. such as painful husbandry procedures.. this does not necessarily diminish the rigour of the research utilizing criteria or methodologies arising from these different concepts. research utilizing well-accepted stress models is required to understand the relationships between these concepts and methodologies. In the meantime. disagreement over these welfare concepts or criteria. grow and reproduce.Farm Animal Welfare 45 freedom to express normal behaviour (FAWC. it is considered that animals. While most would accept that these freedoms are necessary to avoid a lack of suffering. optimize their growth. in terms of a consensus on animal welfare assessment. will be motivated to choose those resources (or behaviours) that maintain homeostasis to optimize their ﬁtness. leads to debates concerning animal welfare and the varying interpretations (Fraser. 2009). 1993). general health and survival. for longer term issues. For example. 2004). at least in the wild.5. there has been little attempt to deﬁne the levels of freedom that are desirable. Furthermore. injury status. 2009).2 Conclusion on welfare assessment The different animal welfare concepts or views on animal welfare can lead scientists to use different criteria or methodologies in assessing an animal’s welfare. Barnett and Hemsworth. 2009). Stevens et al. Sandøe et al. For short-term animal welfare issues involving acute stress. While there is scientiﬁc uncertainty in relation to animal welfare concepts or views. It is also considered by some that feelings or subjective affective states have evolved to motivate behaviour in order to meet needs that have to be satisﬁed in order for the organism to survive. 2.. these two approaches should guide current welfare research methodology. 2003. there is considerable agreement on the need to assess animal welfare from a perspective of biological functioning (Mellor et al. 2008. that is. especially when consequent interpretations conﬂict.6 Conclusions We have not attempted to address the issue of animal rights in this chapter. such as conﬁnement housing. 2. together with the adverse consequences of not providing such freedoms.. While there is limited evidence that deprivation of highly preferred resources results in biological dysfunction (e.
In this chapter we have attempted to provide the background information that is important in exploring the role of human–animal interactions in livestock production. Similarly. animal performance is also at risk in such situations. for example. The aim will be to identify some of the fundamental principles underlying the way in which animals react to humans. that the welfare of livestock is at serious risk in situations where the stockperson’s commitment to surveillance of and attendance to welfare and production issues is less than optimal. While the general community and. the inﬂuence of the stockperson on the welfare of animals is not necessarily obvious to many people both within and outside agriculture. In the next chapter. particularly with respect to the implications for animal welfare. we will consider human–animal interactions from the point of view of current research. current community values do accept the moral right for humans to use animals in agriculture as a source of food but place considerable emphasis on the welfare issues discussed here. This book will therefore highlight the integral role that the stockperson plays in determining the welfare of farm animals. . at times. Nevertheless. including use as companion animals.46 Chapter 2 variety of purposes. It will become clear in subsequent chapters. as objects of hunting or ﬁshing and in agriculture. the livestock industries have implicated housing systems and husbandry practices as potential causes of reduced welfare in farm animals. It is beyond the scope of this book to adequately address this issue.
however. Coleman) 47 . both within the general community and. It is obvious that pets are critically dependent on humans for their care and maintenance. as a group. In modern livestock production. human–animal relationships similar to those in domestic settings develop because farm animals receive frequent and. there is evidence that pet ownership may improve social competence (Edney. 1992). there is less appreciation. Wells (2007) concluded that although not all studies in this area have been methodologically robust. such as coronary heart disease. Even © CAB International 2011. For instance dog owners.3 Human–Animal Interactions and Animal Productivity and Welfare 3. within the livestock industries. particularly in intensive production systems. Some of the beneﬁts that the relationship offers to both partners are recognized.H. Wells (2007) concluded that dogs may assist the psychological well-being of patients in hospitals and residential nursing homes on the basis of assessments of patients being ‘happy. Furthermore. close human contact. In relation to psychological health. Second Edition (P. to some extent.1 Introduction In most walks of life humans frequently interact with animals and in many situations these interactions are such that relationships develop between humans and animals. tend to be a healthier cohort of individuals than non-owners in terms of both minor physical ailments and more serious medical conditions. Wells (2007) concluded that dogs may facilitate their owners’ recovery from certain types of ailment. including coronary heart disease. Human–Livestock Interactions. The human–companion animal relationships that are so common in Western society households are an excellent example of the intense and close relationships that may develop between humans and animals. of the implications of human–animal relationships in livestock production. Hemsworth and G. In relation to children. there is growing appreciation of the beneﬁts that companion animals may have on the physical and psychological health of their owners. In contrast. alert and socially responsive’. the studies suggest that dogs can assist in the prevention of illness in their owners. In an extensive review of research on the relationship between dogs and human health. at times.J.
3. As a consequence. . even with considerable automation. frequent and close human contact. such as in this rotary dairy. farm animals in these systems are likely to receive. Even though in modern production systems the number of animals managed by each stockperson has substantially increased. Handling of pigs and dairy cattle generally involves tactile interaction by the stockperson. 3. given that opportunities for positive human contact are probably minimal. breeding female pigs may be handled frequently around mating and parturition. which may either be negative or positive. a stockperson in modern meat chicken units may manage tens of thousands of birds at a time and. although the stockperson may not physically interact with his or her animals. at times. Lactating dairy cows are intensely handled twice daily during lactation and a stockperson may handle hundreds of cows twice daily at the time of milking (Fig. Similarly. In modern livestock systems. such as restraint. Many people in both the farming and general community recognize that an animal’s early experiences with humans may have marked effects on how it Fig. For example. vaccinations and surgical interventions. and many routine husbandry tasks undertaken by stockpeople may contain negative elements. the stockperson will often be in close visual contact with most of the birds as many as six times daily during routine inspection of birds and their conditions. the amount of human contact that these animals receive is considerable. many of these interactions by stockpeople may be biased towards negative ones.1. stockpeople are required to regularly monitor animals and their conditions and impose routine husbandry procedures.48 Chapter 3 though there may be considerable automation with these production systems.1). Furthermore. stockpeople work with and interact frequently with large numbers of farm animals.
Estep and Hetts (1992) proposed that human– animal relationships can be viewed in a similar manner and that studies of this relationship should be undertaken by investigating each partner’s perception of the relationship. Social structures can be considered to be an accumulation of relationships. 2002). so that the inﬂuence of the quantity and nature of these interactions on the human– animal relationship can be understood. in turn. in which the development of these human–animal interactions in livestock production are explored. Each individual partner’s perception of the relationship allows the interpretation and prediction of future interactions. these interactions between humans and farm animals may also have implications for the welfare of these animals. was derived from the views of Hinde (1970) on social relationships. which. is based on that described by Estep and Hetts (1992). This approach has been clearly illustrated by our research conducted on stockpeople and farm animals.2 Human–Animal Interactions and the Human–Animal Relationship From an ethological perspective. Popular reports on the effects of early experience with humans.5 and Section 5. This chapter examines these effects of human–animal interactions on farm animal fear of humans.Human–Animal Interactions 49 subsequently behaves towards humans. and relationships develop from interactions between individuals. The chapter also forms an introduction to Chapters 4 and 5. 1970) on hand-reared birds. human–animal relationships can be considered to be constructed from a series of interactions between humans and animals. with the quality and frequency of interactions between the two individuals. which is used to consider human–animal relationships in the book. the concept of the human–animal relationship exists not only for each partner of the relationship but also for an observer (Aureli and Schaffner. There is good evidence based on handling and ﬁeld studies examining fear–productivity relationships that human–animal interactions may markedly affect the productivity of farm animals. However. the relationship between a human and an animal can be viewed in terms of inter-individual relationships. 3. have probably contributed to this general appreciation of the effects of early human contact. As discussed later (Section 3. determining the quality of their relationship. as well as the context in which they occur. if animals are able to learn and anticipate future interactions. such as those in the studies by Konrad Lorenz (Lorenz.4). This conceptual framework. Thus. evidence from handling studies and observations on human–animal interactions in the livestock industries indicate that it is . An important methodological feature associated with this concept is the necessity of characterizing those interactions that have signiﬁcance for both the human and animal partners. productivity and welfare. Therefore. what is surprising for many is the profound effects not only of this early experience with humans. but also of the effects of regular human contact on the long-term behaviour and physiology of the animals. Utilizing the view of Hinde (1976) that inter-individual relationships are based on the history of regular interactions between two individuals that are familiar with each other. As fear and stress appear to be implicated in the effects of human–animal interactions on productivity. thereby allowing the relationship to be studied.
the behaviour of the animal in the presence of the handler or other humans (e. it is the stockperson’s direct and indirect experiences with animals that are inﬂuential determinants of the stockperson’s attitudes and behaviour towards farm animals.g. it needs to be recognized that because the relationship from the animal’s perspective develops from the history of its interaction with humans.2). but also by positive emotional states generated by interaction with humans. Murphey et al. which generally is deﬁned and measured as the distance at which an animal withdraws or escapes as a human approaches (Hediger. Therefore. such as the sudden unexpected appearance of a human or a human looming over an animal may be negative for the animal. In other words. Indeed. 1964). olfactory and auditory. The quality of this relationship from the perspective of the animal can therefore be assessed by measuring the behavioural response of the animal to the handler or to other humans. (1981) . farm animals may associate humans with rewarding and punishing events that occur at the time of human–animal interactions and so conditioned responses to humans develop. the ﬂight distance to humans.3). as recognized for example by Boivin et al. the animal’s perspective is likely to be determined not only by negative emotional states. However. the range of emotions in an animal generated by the interaction with humans. which may vary from positive/pleasant to negative/unpleasant. while painful behaviours such as a hit by a human are obviously negative to animals. neutral or negative for the animal. These behaviours by humans may be tactile.50 Chapter 3 this history of interactions between humans and the animal that leads to the development of a stimulus-speciﬁc response of farm animals to humans: through conditioning. is likely to determine the strength of an animals’ relationship with humans. While this chapter focuses more on the implications of poor human– animal relationships. The consequences of such emotional states on animal welfare during handling are easily appreciated. positive emotional states may provide some protection from unfamiliar handling practices or situations or even painful husbandry procedures. the approach and avoidance responses of the animal to the human) will provide information on the quality of the human–animal relationship for the animal. which may therefore vary from negative through neutral to positive. such as fear. the implications of a positive human–animal relationship will be considered later (Section 8. Similarly. 3. For example. Conversely. it is the nature and frequency of these human behaviours that markedly determine the quality of the human–animal relationship for farm animals. fear-provoking behaviours. as discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 4. varies markedly both between and within farm animal species. with fear of humans causing stress and therefore impairing the welfare of the animal. For example. (2003) and Waiblinger et al. Most of the previous research on these relationships in the livestock industries has been speciﬁcally focused on the fear responses of the animals to humans because of their implications for animal productivity and welfare.3 Behavioural Responses of Domestic Animals to Humans There are marked between-species and within-species differences in the behavioural responses of farm animals to humans. and the nature of these behaviours may be positive. visual. (2006).
‘ﬂight speed’ in response to this brief restraint. 2000). however. perhaps as a consequence of less contact with humans in extensive situations. 1982. 1984). 1991. (1979) reported marked differences between crossbred Brahman cattle and British breeds in the speed that they exit a solid-sided box or squeeze chute (stall) following brief restraint. (1988) reported that early human contact not only affected the behavioural responses of goats to humans but also affected . Birds of the ﬂighty stock originated from a hybrid derived from the White Leghorn breed and those of the docile stock from a hybrid derived from a cross of Light Sussex and Rhode Island Red breeds. than the ﬂighty birds (Murphy. there are reports of ﬂight distances of 6–11 m for extensively grazed or rangeland sheep. 2002). Murphy and Duncan (1977. Inherent species differences in general fearfulness will affect the initial responses of naïve animals to novel stimuli such as humans. 1976). and possibly innate fearfulness (Petherick et al. and Hearnshaw et al. These data indicate that experience with humans results in stimulus-speciﬁc effects rather than effects on general fearfulness... the ﬂight distance of extensively grazed farm animals is generally reported to be greater than that of intensively managed farm animals. 1980. Lyons et al. Handled birds showed less avoidance of humans but their responses to novel stimuli were unaffected. termed ‘ﬂighty’ and ‘docile’ on the basis of their behavioural responses to humans. For example. experience with humans should modify these responses to the extent that they become stimulus speciﬁc. 1990c). such as a mechanical scraper and an inﬂating balloon. These scientists examined the effects of regular handling on the behavioural responses of quail and domestic chickens to novel stimuli (such as a blue light) and humans. Selection is more likely to affect the general fearfulness of the naïve animal rather than inﬂuence responses to speciﬁc novel stimuli. In contrast.Human–Animal Interactions 51 reported marked differences in the ﬂight distance between Bos indicus and Bos taurus breeds of cattle to humans. and found that handling predominantly affected the responses of birds to humans rather than to the novel stimuli. and found that early handling affected the behavioural responses of these two stocks of birds to humans. These differences in the avoidance responses of animals to humans may. is moderately heritable in Bos indicus cattle (Burrow and Corbet. Indeed. 1993. These stock differences in the responses to humans may be stimulus speciﬁc because observations indicated that the docile birds did not necessarily show fewer withdrawal responses to novel stimuli. in part. and 31 m for extensively grazed beef cattle in comparison with 4–5 m for more intensively handled sheep on pasture.. Jones and Waddington. 2–8 m for feedlot beef cattle and 0–7 m for dairy cattle (Grandin. Furthermore. over time. Hutson. 1988. Further evidence that the handling effects on the behavioural response of animals to humans may be speciﬁc to humans and not generalized to a range of fear-provoking stimuli is provided in a series of studies by Jones and colleagues (Jones et al. with the docile birds showing a more rapid reduction in their withdrawal responses with regular exposure to humans than the ﬂighty birds. reﬂect inherent species differences in their fear of unfamiliar stimuli or general fearfulness. Hargreaves and Hutson. a scenario expressed in the behaviour of both wild and domestic animal populations (Price. Purcell et al. which some have considered a measure of cattle temperament. 1978) studied two stocks of chickens. 1992).
Bos indicus cattle extensively grazed with infrequent human contact display extreme avoidance responses to restraint and human presence including. through conditioning. Selection for increased docility in the presence of humans has accompanied domestication. on the animal’s subsequent behavioural and physiological responses to novelty (Schaefer. in the study by Lyons et al. reared with either wild or domestic littermates and received either regular handling or no handling from 10 to 23 days. including humans. may perceive humans as predators. Some domestic animals.52 Chapter 3 the behavioural responses of goats to a range of novel stimuli: in comparison with dam-reared goats. Habituation will occur over time as the animal’s fear of humans is gradually reduced by repeated exposure to humans in a neutral context. Galef (1970) tested the effects of several rearing experiences on the behavioural response of wild Norway rats to handling by humans. Even wild strains that are highly fearful of humans show evidence of habituation to humans. (1988). however. a stressor was shown to have marked effects. based on their withdrawal responses to humans. The early handling effects are discussed in more detail later in this chapter (Section 3. 1968). young domesticated animals that have had limited experience with humans may habituate to the presence of humans and thus may perceive humans as part of the environment without any particular signiﬁcance. indeed. 1980). such as aviary birds housed in groups. Suarez and Gallup (1982) suggested that the predominant response of naïve domestic poultry to humans may be a response to predators. Furthermore. that is. tonic immobility or a catatonic-like state during restraint (Grandin. humans were involved in testing the responses of these goats to novel stimuli and thus their response to humans at the time of testing may have inﬂuenced their responses to novel stimuli. some pets. associate humans with rewarding and punishing . Second. at times. Domestic animals in situations in which they frequently interact with humans. such as farm and laboratory animals and. may.1).and third-generation rats. However. early weaning also occurred in the human-rearing treatment. were reared by either wild or domestic rats. many of the studies that have examined the behavioural responses of animals to novel stimuli have used testing procedures that involved the presence of humans around the time of testing. the behavioural response of these animals to handling was observed and it was found that only those animals that had had physical contact with humans (handling) showed minimal withdrawal responses to capture.5. which may receive limited human contact. In fact. and the stress of early weaning may have affected the subsequent behaviour of the human-reared goats to novelty in a similar manner to that observed in the so-called ‘early handling studies’. 1993). Over time. through its effects on developmental processes. the human’s presence has neither rewarding nor punishing elements. Wild-caught deer and deer bred in captivity both habituate to the presence of humans. In many of these early handling studies. domestic animals may still ﬁnd human contact aversive and thus perceive humans as predators. with their ﬂight distance to humans reducing to 30 m or less (Matthews. those reared by humans showed increased approach to and less avoidance of a number of stimuli. At weaning at 23 days of age. and indeed in a number of other studies. which are indicative of anti-predator responses. which were housed in a laboratory.
one could argue that such relationships exist between humans and their companion animals.5. 1987). The behavioural responses may include escape–avoidance behaviour or aggressive behaviour to humans. whereby dogs act to maintain proximity with humans and show signs of separation stress when separated from humans. Animals may also perceive humans as social partners and this is likely in situations where young animals form a long-lasting bond or attachment to humans. 1996d). Approach behaviour to humans may also occur when fear wanes and the animal commences to explore and investigate the human stimulus. as demonstrated by the extensive studies by John Paul Scott (see Scott. There is also evidence that pigs may associate the rewarding experience of feeding with the handler and that this conditioning results in pigs being less fearful of humans (Hemsworth et al. In contrast. it is well established that animals learn to avoid conditioned stimuli that are paired with aversive events. Studies examining the effects of a range of handling treatments on the behaviour of pigs (see Section 3. As reviewed by Rushen et al. and as little as a few minutes per day of visual contact or 20 min of visual contact twice a week appears to affect attachment (Scott. particularly companion animals and..1) indicate that conditioned approach–avoidance responses develop as a consequence of associations between the stockperson and aversive and rewarding elements of the handling bouts. pigs that received pats or strokes during brief daily handling bouts subsequently showed increased approach to humans. through conditioning. Thus. Social attachment. Although there is some controversy over the mechanism by which avoidance behaviour becomes conditioned by punishment (Walker. is often considered a social relationship. These studies showed that early human contact can result in the formation of social attachment by dogs to humans. the behavioural responses of farm animals to humans may be regulated by the nature of the experiences occurring around the time of interactions with humans. However. with a peak between 6 and 8 weeks. 1992) on the effects of early human contact on the responses of dogs to humans. learned to associate the presence of the handler with the punishment of the handling bouts. 3. If the deﬁnition of a social relationship between two individuals includes preference for interaction and proximity for each other (i.4 Fear of Humans by Domestic Animals Fear of humans by animals is often assessed on the basis of the behavioural and physiological responses of animals to humans. (2001).Human–Animal Interactions 53 events that occur at the time of these interactions and thus conditioned responses to humans may develop. afﬁliative behaviour) which is similar to that for conspeciﬁcs. it is questionable that human–animal relationships in commercial livestock systems are genuine social relationships. 1992). and thus approach behaviour can be usefully considered as an inverse measure of level of fear of .e. farm animals. the relationship between humans and domestic animals. Pigs that were slapped or shocked with a battery-operated prodder whenever they approached or failed to avoid the experimenter in daily handling bouts of 15–30 s. occurs most rapidly in dogs from 3 to 12 weeks. to a lesser extent. whether to dogs or humans.
For example.54 Chapter 3 humans. The physiological responses associated with fear include responses of the autonomic nervous system (e. 189) described the function of emotions as ‘certain states of the central nervous system that play a role in the co-ordination of cognition. hunger and sex are considered motivational states. Faure (1981) has shown that selection for high ambulation in an open-ﬁeld test is associated with reduced latency to and . avoidance or freezing and (b) inhibition of appetitive behaviour’. This limitation in its measurement has contributed to the considerable controversy that exists with the deﬁnition of fear. While motivation cannot be observed directly and is dependent upon internal and external stimuli. In relation to external stimuli. While fear appears to be activated almost exclusively by external stimuli (Hogan. Murphy. 2008).. to a range of stimuli that may pose some risk or danger to the welfare of the animal and. a state of fear simultaneously underlies (a) excitation of escape. p. breed and strain effects on fear responses have been shown in both laboratory and farm animal species.1). have high intensity such as loud and large stimuli. many authors consider fear as a motivational state which is aroused by certain speciﬁc stimuli and normally gives rise to defensive behaviour or escape (McFarland. Breed and strain differences in fear responses have been demonstrated in many farm animals (Mills et al. 1997). have special evolutionary dangers such as heights. Hogan. isolation and darkness. fear has been considered by some writers in the same sense as thirst. secretions of the corticosteroid hormones cortisol and corticosterone). on the other hand. as with other emotions. while we consider fear in this book as an emotion like pleasure/happiness. 1978).g. but can only be inferred from the behaviour and stress physiology of the animal. social. 1981. gender. Fear. to a series of responses.5. on the one hand. Toates (1980) proposes that this is no argument against motivation having a provisional usefulness. Gray (1987) recognizes that fear may be triggered by environmental stimuli that are novel.1. For example. its use by scientists and its measurement (see Hinde.4. both behavioural and physiological. Toates (2004. For example. affected by both internal and external stimuli. which are often used in behavioural studies to assess fear. Thus. Motivate means to move and is concerned with what ‘moves’ an animal to act in a certain way (Toates. 2008). In open-ﬁeld tests.g. However. fear can be viewed as an intervening variable. 1970. vocalized and ambulated sooner and preened and pecked more than those tested individually. These physiological responses are the same indicators used to study stress (Section 2. cannot be measured or observed directly. intrinsic factors are also important. internal physiology and external behaviour. 3.1 Deﬁnition At its simplest. by the animal that enable it to respond appropriately to this source of danger. 1980) and thus the study of motivation aims to understand the modulation of stimulus–response relationships. Jones (1983) found that pair-tested chickens generally froze less. linked. arise from social interaction such as contagious learning or have been paired with aversive experiences. secretions of adrenaline and noradrenaline) and the neuroendocrine system (e.
While the existence of emotional feelings in animals is a contentious issue in science. Female rodents generally exhibit more ambulation and less defaecation than males in open-ﬁeld tests (Gray. Furthermore. . therefore. The view that fear is an emotion. Jones. as well as immobility responses such as freezing or crouching in the close presence of humans (Hemsworth and Barnett. because these responses have important implications for the productivity and welfare of livestock. 1981. 1990).2 Behavioural and physiological responses to humans The behavioural and physiological responses that fearful animals may display in the presence of humans will be considered in more detail. It is reasonable to label these responses as fear responses because it is generally accepted that fear responses are normal. In concert with these behavioural effects. An understanding of the causal factors may provide the opportunity to reduce fear responses to humans in livestock and. and cardiac and respiratory functions. fear can be considered as an undesirable emotion that gives rise to defensive behaviour or escape. assist the animal to meet the physical and/or emotional challenges of the fear-provoking situation. 1987. fear. 1987. Section 2. escape from. 1987). These biological responses are the stress responses considered earlier (Section 2. Therefore. biologists generally consider that animals are restricted to a few basic emotions. such as anger. Fear is usually listed among the emotions and Gray (1987) deﬁnes fear as a form of emotional reaction to a stimulus that the animal works to terminate. in turn. Mills and Faure. Farm animals in the presence of humans commonly display behavioural patterns that can be labelled fear responses.5. joy and happiness (Bolles.2. the main factors that have been identiﬁed that regulate these responses in livestock are considered in detail in Section 3. fear normally activates the autonomic nervous system and the neuroendocrine system and.1. through their effects on regulatory mechanisms such as energy availability and use.4. such as withdrawal from or avoidance of humans. adaptive responses that function to protect the animal from harmful stimuli (Toates.4.1. while Vandenheede and Bouissou (1993) found that rams show more approach to a stationary human than ewes.Human–Animal Interactions 55 increased ambulation in domestic chicks. is a useful construct that enables the study of the proximate or immediate causes and ontogeny of these fear responses to humans. as discussed in Section 3.2).5. may assist the animal to respond appropriately to a source of danger. or avoid. affected by both internal and external stimuli that elicit behavioural and physiological responses which. Jones and Waddington (1992) consider fear as an undesirable emotional state of suffering. What is surprising when studying farm animals is the magnitude of these fear responses to humans given that these animals have been domesticated over many generations and that there is generally substantial contact between humans and farm animals in modern livestock production systems. these systems.5. 3.1) and they will be reviewed here in the context of exposure of the animal to a fear-provoking stimulus. 1980).
as well as responses of the autonomic nervous system. the docile birds showed evidence of higher fear. These ‘ﬁght or ﬂight’ responses last for only a short period and.1. such as a mechanical scraper and an inﬂating balloon. (1981). 1976). with secretions of catecholamines (e. 1914). 3. withdrawal and heart rate were measured as a human slowly approached. have a greater acute cortisol response to brief exposure to humans than animals that are less fearful of humans (Fig. which may include escape or avoidance responses.2). than the ﬂighty birds (Murphy. This is the short-term or acute stress response. 1978). assessed on the basis of their behavioural responses to humans. often called the ‘ﬁght or ﬂight responses’ or the ‘emergency reaction’ (Cannon. The short-term behavioural and physiological responses of the two strains of birds studied by Murphy and Duncan (1977. These autonomic nervous system responses therefore function to mobilize the body’s reserves for an appropriate and immediate reaction to this challenge. The behavioural and physiological changes had similar time courses and the differences observed reﬂected the original classiﬁcation of the two strains: when the human was close. which may last from minutes to hours and predominantly consists of increased secretions of the corticosteroid hormones cortisol and corticosterone. indeed. these stock differences may be stimulus speciﬁc. A particularly important biological effect is the adrenaline-dependent production of glucose from liver glycogen (glycogenolysis) for an immediate energy supply. If the stressor (human) is removed. Thus. which prepare the animal for these behavioural responses.1) that the animal has four types of interrelated biological responses available when confronted with a potential challenge (stressor): behavioural responses and responses of the autonomic nervous system. the ﬂighty strain showed greater withdrawal and increased heart rate. were monitored by Jones et al. . The magnitude of acute physiological responses should reﬂect the intensity of the stressor (Harbuz and Lightman. blood pressure and body temperature. the central nervous system integrates these responses and it is these responses that provide the principal resources that the animal utilizes in its attempts to cope with this stressor. this physiological state will disappear with possibly no real ill-effects on the animal apart from a depletion of energy reserves. termed ‘ﬂighty’ and ‘docile’ on the basis of their behavioural responses to humans. studies on a number of farm animals have shown that highly fearful animals. The close presence of a human is likely to initiate a series of adaptive or coping responses.5. a second series of events occurs. It is of interest that when the human was ﬁrst observed at a distance. if the stressor (human) is not removed. Orientation. This acute stress response has the major function of providing glucose from food or muscle protein (gluconeogenesis) for the required increased metabolic performance necessary to respond to the fearprovoking situation. As mentioned earlier. as the docile birds do not necessarily show fewer withdrawal responses to novel stimuli. perhaps because the human was not recognized as a human at this distance. adrenaline and noradrenaline) and elevations in heart rate. 1992) and.56 Chapter 3 It will be recalled from the previous chapter (Section 2.g. the neuroendocrine system and the immune system. when an animal that is highly fearful of humans is in the close presence of a human.
1981a). 3. has shown that high levels . the response continues to the third series of events.Human–Animal Interactions 57 50 Change in corticosteroids (%) Positively handled Negatively handled 30 10 –10 –30 –50 0 5 10 Time (min) 15 20 240 Positively handled Change in corticosteroids (%) 190 140 90 40 –10 Negatively handled –60 0 10 20 Time (min) 30 40 Fig.e. Percentage change in plasma cortisol concentrations in positively handled and negatively handled cows (top ﬁgure) and pigs (bottom ﬁgure) after a 2-min exposure to a human (data reanalysed from Breuer et al. which is the long-term or chronic stress response. predominantly on pigs. and Hemsworth et al..2. If the stressor continues (i. impaired immunity and reduced reproductive performance.. 2000. Research. This response is also corticosteroid dependent and comes at a physiological cost to the animal: prolonged activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis results in decreased metabolic efﬁciency and thus growth performance. these short-term responses are ineffective in enabling the fearful animal to avoid or alleviate the challenge of the close presence of the human).
Acute physiological stress responses such as rises in plasma corticosteroid concentrations and heart rate have also be used to assess fear. conversely. of an apparently positive nature.3. the amount of avoidance or. Therefore. While the degree of novelty of the test arena may be reduced by the similarity of the arena with the animals’ home pen or familiar environment. 3.1). which in turn markedly reduced the growth and reproductive performance of the animal (see Section 3. there will be a systematic difference in approach behaviour between fearful and non-fearful animals. when comparing animals in the same novel environment. the animal’s fear of humans will have a major inﬂuence on its approach to the human stimulus.6. A signiﬁcant negative association between the magnitude of the cortisol response of pigs exposed to an experimenter . In studying the behavioural responses of farm animals to humans. and were more resistant to Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Escherichia coli than birds that either received minimal human contact or had been regularly scared (see Section 3. and this sequence of behaviour as affected by the animal’s fear of humans is depicted in Fig. conversely. feed conversion and antibody response to an antigen. The rationale behind these assessments is that while there may be a number of behavioural patterns available to the animal that may be equally effective in the fear-provoking situation.6.58 Chapter 3 of fear of humans resulted in a chronic stress response. 3. in some studies on pigs and cattle. For example.4. Handling experiments with young chickens have also shown that birds that received brief human contact.. the amount of approach to the stimulus in standard testing situations. Hemsworth and Barnett (1987) have described the sequence of behavioural responses of pigs to humans that may occur in an approach test of this type. often in conjunction with behavioural measures. we have adopted a functional view (Hemsworth et al. animals introduced into this new environment will be motivated to explore and familiarize themselves with the test environment once the initial fear responses have waned. approach provides an integrated measure of the fear levels without having to make judgements about the relative signiﬁcance of speciﬁc behavioural patterns.3 Measurement of fear for humans A number of studies have assessed fear levels by measuring the amount of avoidance of the stimulus or. There is evidence for this interpretation. 1993) and have used the avoidance behaviour of the animal to an approaching experimenter or. a decision that freezing is indicative of higher or lower levels of fear than orientation away from the stimulus or vigorous escape from the stimulus is not required. the approach behaviour of the animal to a stationary experimenter to assess the animal’s fear of humans.2). For example. we have measured the time to closely approach and time spent near a stationary experimenter in a standard arena. That is. although the animals may be motivated to both avoid and explore the arena and the human stimulus. It should be appreciated that there are likely to be competing motivations of avoidance and exploration in these approach tests. conversely. had improved growth rates.
Human–Animal Interactions Human 59 Stage 1 Orientiation response Stage 2 Escape Vocalization Stage 3 Immobile Orient away Stage 4 Immobile Orient to Stage 5 Approach and investigate human Stage 6 Closely approach and investigate human Fig. 1986c. 1981. the imposition of handling treatments designed to differentially affect pigs’ fear of humans produced the expected variations in the approach behaviour of pigs to a stationary experimenter in the standard test (Hemsworth et al. Jones and . Orientation away and withdrawal from the approaching human have been equated with high fear levels. Sequence of behavioural responses of pigs to exposure to a stationary human. with permission from the publishers).. given sufﬁcient time. Hemsworth and Barnett.3. 1986. Asterisk refers to habituation of fear and. 1987. Furthermore. the animal will move to the next stage (adapted from Hemsworth and Barnett. 1987). 1981a. 3.. 1987. As poultry show little locomotion in a novel arena in the short term. Handling treatments intuitively expected to reduce the fear of humans by poultry have reduced orientation away and withdrawal from the experimenter in several standard tests measuring the avoidance of humans (Jones and Faure. 1992. (1988) found that dam-reared goats that showed less approach to and greater avoidance of humans had a higher cortisol response to human presence than human-reared goats. Similarly. Barnett et al. Lyons et al. in their home pen and the approach behaviour of pigs to a stationary experimenter in the standard test support this behavioural assessment of fear (Hemsworth and Barnett. 1991).. Gonyou et al. the avoidance responses of birds to an approaching human have often been used to assess fear levels.
Waddington, 1993; Hemsworth et al., 1994c, 1996a; Edwards, 2009). These tests are similar to tests that have been utilized to measure ﬂight distance in sheep and cattle (e.g. Hargreaves and Hutson, 1990c), deﬁned as the distance at which an animal withdraws as a human approaches. In some studies on cattle, pigs and poultry, we have used both approach behaviour to a stationary experimenter and avoidance behaviour to an approaching experimenter (Fig. 3.4) to study fear of humans. In a study by Hemsworth et al. (1981b), in which the fear responses of commercial breeding sows to humans were assessed on the basis of both the approach behaviour of sows to a stationary experimenter and avoidance behaviour to an approaching experimenter, the two measures were correlated with reproductive performance. Approach behaviour of sows at the farm, on the basis of the time spent near a stationary experimenter, was positively correlated with farrowing rate (percentage
Fig. 3.4. The avoidance behaviour of poultry to humans has been used to assess their levels of fear of humans. This photograph shows an experimenter ﬁlming the withdrawal of chickens as he moves through the meat chicken unit in a standard manner.
of sows mated that farrowed) at the farm, while avoidance behaviour, on the basis of time taken to return to feeding after the experimenter approached, was negatively correlated with farrowing rate. Breuer et al. (2003) used similar measures to assess the fear responses of heifers to humans – approach behaviour to a stationary experimenter and ﬂight distance to an approaching experimenter – and found that differing handling treatments resulted in corresponding effects on these measures of fear. As mentioned earlier in this section, there are several criticisms of the use of behavioural responses as measures of fear levels. Behavioural responses and indeed physiological responses can be criticized on the grounds that the responses are not speciﬁc to the emotional state of fear and that motivational states, such as hunger, may confound the assessment. However, this is also true when attempting to assess motivational states. For example, mounting may occur in pigs in both sexual and aggressive encounters. A lack of sexual activity by a ram in a sexual setting may not be a consequence of reduced sexual motivation at the time, but may be a consequence of a competing motivational state, such as fear of the close presence of a dominant ram, inhibiting sexual motivation. As with fear, measurement of these states can also be difﬁcult, relying on inference from observation of the responses. Studies under controlled conditions in which conﬂicting motivations are eliminated or controlled enable the study of the proximate causes and ontogeny of speciﬁc motivational states or behavioural systems of interest. Because a number of behavioural patterns may be available to the animal in a fear-provoking situation, and as a number of these patterns may be equally effective for the animal in avoiding the danger, a number of authors have also argued that there is little scientiﬁc basis for ranking these behavioural patterns in terms of fear levels (Murphy, 1978). For instance, is freezing indicative of higher or lower levels of fear than orientation away from the stimulus or vigorous escape from the stimulus? This particular problem is one of the main reasons that a functional approach, which does not rely on judging particular patterns of behaviour has been used to measure fear: a functional approach to assess fear is based on the amount of avoidance of the stimulus or, conversely, the amount of approach to the stimulus in standard testing situations. In a recent review of the assessment of the human–animal relationship, Waiblinger et al. (2006) concluded that while few tests of fear of humans were validated, tests measuring an animal’s behavioural response to either a stationary or approaching human have to contend with possible competing motivations or behavioural systems that may differ between the test categories. In tests in which humans approach as distinct from those in which humans are stationary, fear responses may be easier to interpret than motivations such as curiosity or exploration. In contrast, when testing an animal’s approach to a stationary human, latency in approaching and interacting by the animal may vary according to the level of curiosity. However, as discussed earlier, although an animal may be motivated to both avoid and explore the arena and the human stimulus, the animal’s fear of humans will have a major inﬂuence on its approach to the human stimulus. This approach to assessing fear is supported by the ﬁndings of behavioural and physiological correlates in these tests (see earlier in this section),
together with ﬁndings that imposition of handling treatments designed to differentially affect an animal’s fear of humans generally produced the expected variations in the behavioural responses of animals to humans (see Section 3.5). Furthermore, the issue of competing motivations such as curiosity or exploration of the test location and effects such as novelty and social isolation may also confound assessment of fear responses to humans in tests involving an approaching human. However, when comparing groups of animals of the same strain under conditions that are similarly novel for both groups but in which the groups have different histories of interactions with humans, their approach behaviour to humans should be attributable to fear because the competing motivations would be similar for both groups. There are other concerns relating to assessing fear responses to humans, some of which have been discussed by de Passille and Rushen (2005) and Waiblinger et al. (2006). These include: the validity and repeatability of fear measures, particularly in commercial settings; the different fear measures available; effects of context (e.g. testing setting, individual person and his/her stimulus properties, including posture and clothing); effects of testing location relative to the routine handling location; identity of test person (e.g. stimulus generalization versus stimulus discrimination); pretesting effects, particularly pretest handling; and the artiﬁcial nature of the test (e.g. novelty of the testing setting). Clearly these limitations need to be recognized and tests to assess fear of humans need to be validated.
3.5 Human Contact Affecting the Behavioural Responses of Farm Animals to Humans
Modern intensive management of livestock involves several levels of interaction between stockpeople and their animals. Many of the human interactions are associated with regular observation of the animals and their conditions and, consequently, this type of interaction often only involves visual contact between the stockperson and the animals. For example, stockpeople inspect meat chickens and their conditions in indoor deep-litter production systems by moving through the groups several times a day. Similarly, in caged housing systems for laying hens, stockpeople move along the corridors several times a day inspecting birds and their conditions. Larger animals in most production systems have to be moved and, in addition to visual and auditory contact, stockpeople will often use tactile behaviours to move their animals. Extensively grazed animals, such as cattle and sheep, are moved between pastures as part of optimal pasture management, and extensively grazed dairy cows and indoor-housed dairy cows are moved several times a day during lactation to be milked. Growing pigs are generally moved from pen to pen in order to provide accommodation suitable to their stage of growth, while breeding pigs may be regularly moved according to the stage of their breeding cycle. It is in these situations, in which animals have regular albeit brief contact with humans, that human behaviours have considerable potential to inﬂuence the immediate behaviour of the animals, as well as the subsequent behavioural responses of the animals to humans.
Human interactions also occur in situations in which animals must be restrained and subjected to management or health procedures. Some animals may never be restrained in a production system, while others are restrained on a regular basis. The association of fear and pain from these husbandry procedures with the humans performing them may increase the fear of humans that animals subsequently exhibit in both similar situations involving humans and different situations involving humans, including routine inspections. Handling studies on farm animals are useful in identifying the type and nature of human contact that may regulate the behavioural responses of farm animals to humans, and some of the main studies in this literature are considered in this section.
3.5.1 Tactile contact by humans Handling studies, predominantly on dairy cattle, pigs, poultry and sheep, indicate that the behavioural response of farm animals to humans is particularly affected by tactile interactions from humans. Handling studies on pigs have consistently shown that negative handling imposed brieﬂy but regularly over weeks or months increases their fear of humans. Pigs that received a brief slap, hit or shock with a battery-operated prodder whenever they approached or failed to avoid an experimenter during brief handling bouts, subsequently were slower to approach and physically interact with, spent less time near and interacted less frequently with the stationary experimenter in an unfamiliar arena than pigs that received a pat or stroke whenever they approached the experimenter (Hemsworth et al., 1981a, 1986c, 1987; Gonyou et al., 1986; Paterson and Pearce, 1989, 1992; Pearce et al., 1989; Hemsworth and Barnett, 1991). Furthermore, pigs handled in a negative manner had a higher acute cortisol response to brief exposure to the experimenter in their home pens than pigs handled positively (Fig. 3.2; Hemsworth et al., 1981a, 1986c, 1987). In general, pigs receiving minimal human contact in these experiments were intermediate in their fear responses to humans. Pedersen et al. (2003) found that sows that were stroked regularly around weaning tended to approach and interact quicker with a stationary experimenter at weaning than sows that were snout snared once and then in subsequent daily handling bouts were shouted at and hit if they approached. Tanida et al. (1995) also found that pigs that were regularly stroked were quicker to physically interact and spent more time interacting with humans than pigs that were not handled, and Day et al. (2003) found that growing pigs that received daily close human contact in the form of a stockperson entering their pens and stroking approaching pigs, physically interacted more with the stationary stockperson in their pens in a series of tests than pigs that generally only received routine inspection without the stockperson entering their pens. In many of the above experiments, patting or stroking in the positive handling treatments was accompanied by slow movement and squatting by the experimenter to encourage pigs to approach (Fig. 3.5). As with pigs, there is good evidence from handling studies on dairy cows that negative tactile interactions will increase their fear of humans, while positive
(1997) found that ﬂight distance in lactating heifers was increased when moderate or forceful slaps were brieﬂy imposed before and after milking when animals failed to avoid the close approach of the experimenter. negative handling imposed over a shorter time has also been shown to increase fear responses of dairy calves and cows. While the handling treatments in these two experiments were imposed brieﬂy but regularly for weeks. lowered heart rate and increased interactions with the experimenter.. fed and gently spoken to them. de Passille et al. Breuer et al. tactile interactions will decrease fear of humans. In cattle. 2003).64 Chapter 3 Fig. Slow movement and squatting will encourage pigs to approach and interact with humans (photograph courtesy of Wageningen UR Communication Services). (1996) reported that dairy calves spent less time near and were slower to interact with an experimenter that had restrained them by nose tongs or shocked or threatened them with a battery-operated cattle prodder than to an experimenter that either patted and fed them or spent time in close visual contact with them. spent less time near and interacted less frequently with a stationary experimenter in an unfamiliar arena than those that were positively handled with slow and deliberate movements. 3. Treatment effects were apparent when either the familiar or an unfamiliar experimenter was used in the behavioural tests. pats and strokes (Breuer et al. Dairy heifers that were slapped or hit whenever they approached or failed to avoid the experimenter subsequently were slower to approach and interact with. (1999) found that dairy cows in their home pens showed greater avoidance of an experimenter that had hit or shocked them with a battery-operated cattle prodder than of an experimenter that had brushed. intraspeciﬁc . (2008) found that stroking the ventral region of the neck of dairy cattle encouraged more neck stretching. Rushen et al. Schmied et al. The former group of heifers also showed a greater ﬂight distance to an approaching experimenter.5.
(2003) found that this handling and feeding treatment was only effective if the calves were isolated from their dams.c) found that calves that were regularly stroked on their necks and shoulders and allowed to suck the stockperson’s ﬁngers spent more time interacting with a stationary unfamiliar experimenter in their home pens and showed less withdrawal to an approaching unfamiliar experimenter in front of their pens than calves that received minimal contact with the experimenter around feeding. reduced the latency of calves to approach a stationary unfamiliar experimenter in their home pens. (2001b. In an experiment with one meat. particularly in the ﬁrst 4 days of life. While cortisol concentrations were lower in the handled heifers after capture and leading than in the non-handled heifers. Boissy and Bouissou (1988) examined the effects of the same total duration of positive handling but imposed at different periods in life on the behavioural response of dairy heifers to humans. Lensink et al. Krohn et al. (2001a. patting and stroking calves. There is some evidence from short-term early handling studies on dairy calves that feeding by humans and isolation from the dam may inﬂuence the extent of handling effects on calves. heart rates were lower in the animals handled from 0 to 9 months after heart rate monitors were attached and the animals were tested in several tests than they were in the other groups. and interacted more frequently and for longer with both experimenters standing stationary in an unfamiliar arena than calves that received minimal contact with the experimenter around feeding. involving brushing and leading on a halter. This latter ﬁnding suggests that the presence of the dam at the time of handling may inﬂuence the subsequent behavioural responses of calves to humans. patting and stroking). imposed from 0 to 9 months of age.b) also found that the dairy calves that predominantly received positive handling during rearing had lower heart rates during loading for transport than those that received either minimal human contact or predominantly negative handling. (1999) found that bucket feeding but not positive handling (consisting of talking. Jones and colleagues demonstrated the effects of regular but brief handling from an early age on the behavioural response of birds to humans. Positive handling. in subsequently increasing approach behaviour and reducing ﬂight distance of calves to an unfamiliar experimenter. Long-term handling studies on dairy calves have shown that positive tactile interactions will decrease their fear of humans. Similarly. (2000b) found that calves that received similar positive handling withdrew less from the approach of both an unfamiliar experimenter and the familiar experimenter in their home pens. was effective. reduced ﬂight distance to an approaching experimenter at 9 months in comparison with positive handling imposed at either 0–3 months or 6–9 months. Krohn et al. or minimal human contact from 0–9 months of age.and egg-production strains of poultry. Lensink et al. (2001) found that handling involving an experimenter assisting the calves to feed from a teat bucket and talking. during rearing. Jones and Faure (1981) found that regular handling – involving catching and brieﬂy relocating to . Lensink et al. In a series of handling studies on both meat. However. Jago et al. such as hitting and shouting.and two egg-production strains.Human–Animal Interactions 65 social licking in this area is very common and these results suggest that stroking this preferred region may be perceived more positively than a neutral interaction by humans.
2001. Others have also examined the effects of handling on poultry. artiﬁcial rearing increased the magnitude of the handling effects (Boivin et al. holding and stroking chickens may contain some aversive elements. but only in young birds of the docile stock and not in adult birds of either stock. reduced the duration of tonic immobility. Tallet et al. These results suggest that the treatment involving catching. (2005) examined the contributions of feeding and positive handling. stroking and talking. termed ‘ﬂighty’ and ‘docile’. on the subsequent approach behaviour of artiﬁcially reared lambs to a familiar experimenter in an unfamiliar arena. Hughes and Black (1976) found that regular catching and brieﬂy relocating chickens to another pen during rearing reduced their avoidance of the experimenter standing near the front of their cage as well as their avoidance of a novel rod placed by the experimenter in the front feed trough. Both stroking and stroking in combination with bottle-feeding by an experimenter increased the time that lambs subsequently spent near the stationary familiar experimenter in an unfamiliar arena than those exposed to minimal human contact (Boivin et al. and that habituation of the bird’s fear responses to humans over time with repeated exposure to humans is the main factor responsible for the reduction in fear observed in these handling treatments.2. It is of interest that in one of three experiments. Jones (1993) also found that both suspending chickens by their legs and stroking chickens reduced their avoidance of a stationary experimenter.5. Similarly. Jones. showed less avoidance of the stationary experimenter than chickens that had had minimal human contact. In a similar experiment. Murphy and Duncan (1977) found that handling involving catching and brieﬂy relocating birds to another pen with feed reduced their avoidance of the approaching experimenter. regular catching. involving catching. but not catching and suspending chickens by their legs. 2001. For example.. 2002). 1993). holding and stroking chickens of an egg-production strain reduced the duration of tonic immobility and increased the approach to a stationary experimenter in an unfamiliar pen (Jones and Waddington.. These ﬁndings will be considered further in Section 3. 2000.. Zulkiﬂi and Siti Nor Azah (2004) found that catching and stroking meat chickens. in turn. While the two treatments of positive handling and positive handling plus bottle feeding increased the subsequent . Boivin and colleagues demonstrated the longterm effects of positive handling from an early age on the behavioural response of lambs to humans. While the combination of feeding and stroking increased the approach of lambs to the experimenter in subsequent tests. In a series of experiments. 2002). however the former treatment did not affect the duration of tonic immobility.66 Chapter 3 another pen – subsequently increased the approach of birds to a stationary experimenter in an unfamiliar pen and reduced the duration of tonic immobility following restraint in comparison with minimal human contact. 2002). This inﬂuence of artiﬁcial rearing suggests that the motivation to maintain contact with their dams may reduce the opportunity of dam-reared lambs to develop strong positive relationships with humans (Boivin et al. 1992. In a handling study on two stocks of birds. Jones (1993) found that chickens that had regular visual contact with an experimenter in the form of gentle stroking of their wire-mesh cage wall showed less avoidance of the stationary experimenter than chickens that were regularly caught and stroked by the experimenter which.
the treatments of positive handling with or without bottle feeding resulted in similar approach behaviour. (2002b) found that post-weaning handling also reduced the fear responses of both juvenile and adult silver foxes. 1993). (1991) found that sheep that were spoken to and stroked on the shoulders and necks by an experimenter whenever they approached were subsequently quicker to approach and interacted more frequently with the stationary experimenter in an unfamiliar arena than those that received no additional handling. but received similar auditory and tactile contact from the experimenter to that in the positive treatment. talking. Nonhandled adult vixens had heavier adrenal glands than adult vixens in the two handling treatments. Pedersen (1993) and Pedersen et al. 1990). reduces fear responses to humans assessed on the basis of the animal’s approach or avoidance behaviour to familiar or unfamiliar humans in either familiar or unfamiliar locations. These latter results suggest that the negative nature of restraint may mask or negate the positive elements of talking to and stroking sheep. Regular positive handling involving a slow approach to the cage. showed a similar approach to the experimenter to the ewes that received no additional handling. Pedersen et al. offered feed and stroked or regularly caught and carried showed less avoidance of an unfamiliar experimenter standing stationary in front of their cage in comparison with non-handled animals. there is evidence that this positive handling also reduces the acute stress response to humans based on a reduced corticosteroid response to the presence of . Furthermore.Human–Animal Interactions 67 approach behaviour of lambs to the experimenter in comparison with a treatment involving the experimenter squatting in the lambs’ pens. indicating that the handling treatments may have reduced stress. Research by Pedersen and colleagues shows that handling of a positive nature both early in life and after weaning affects the subsequent behavioural responses of farmed silver foxes to humans. Hargreaves and Hutson (1990a) found that talking to. offering feed and stroking resulted in more juveniles approaching an unfamiliar experimenter standing stationary in front of their cage (Pederson. In some of these studies. such as patting and stroking. Juveniles that had been regularly stroked and talked to early in life showed increased approach to and reduced avoidance of the familiar experimenter standing stationary in front of their home cage in comparison with juveniles that had not been regularly handled (Pedersen and Jeppesen. Several studies on adult sheep have also demonstrated the effects of positive handling imposed brieﬂy but regularly over a number of weeks. stroking and feeding hay and lupins to sheep reduced their ﬂight distance and heart rate in response to the approaching experimenter in comparison with minimal human contact. In addition. (1994) also found that when tested as juveniles and adults. Therefore. regular catching and carrying in a cage after weaning resulted in similar approach behaviour to the positive handling. particularly those on pigs and cattle. ewes that were restrained in a head gate. While there were no treatment effects on cortisol concentrations prior to an open ﬁeld test. there is considerable evidence in farm animals that regular handling involving positive tactile interactions. Mateo et al. the handled juveniles had higher cortisol concentrations following this test. animals that were spoken to.
. squatting and quietly speaking to the animals.5. 3. farm animals may form a long-lasting bond or attachment to humans. Jago et al. For example with lambs. 2001) found that feeding together with positive handling resulted in a greater increase in the approach behaviour of lambs to humans than either feeding or positive handling alone. (1999) found that feeding by humans.. will reduce fear responses to humans by cattle (Hemsworth et al.2 and 3.. such as pats and strokes. For example. but not positive handling. often in an attempt to attract the animal to the experimenter. and thus the reduced fear responses to humans in some of these studies may have developed because the animals associated the presence of humans with the reward of food rather than the consequences of handling per se.68 Chapter 3 humans. Hemsworth et al. (1986b) found that regular but brief patting or stroking of pigs for the ﬁrst 8 weeks of life increased their approach and Fig.5. Furthermore. increased the approach behaviour of calves to humans.6. The effects of visual and auditory contact with humans will be discussed in Sections 3. followed by patting and talking on approach by cattle. many of these handling studies involved the experimenter moving slowly. (2000. It needs to be recognized that in addition to presumably positive tactile interactions. some of the handling treatments reported here were associated with the provision of food. Handling treatments involving initial passive interactions by the handler. 1996d). 1996c). As discussed earlier in this chapter (Section 3. While it is arguable that human–animal relationships in commercial livestock systems are genuine social relationships. particularly if as young animals they have regular contact with humans. there is evidence that farm animals may be more sensitive to human contact early in life.3. such as squatting and remaining stationary.3). Pigs fed in the close presence of humans were quicker to approach and spent more time near stationary unfamiliar and familiar experimenters than pigs that were fed in isolation of humans (Hemsworth et al. Boivin et al.
these treatments at times have resulted in increased growth and accelerated development. Boissy and Bouissou (1988) found that brushing and leading calves on a halter from 0 to 9 months of age was more effective in subsequently reducing avoidance responses to humans than the same handling at either 0–3 months or 6–9 months of age. while early handling may have speciﬁc effects on the behavioural response of animals . no treatment effects were apparent from 20 to 24 weeks of age. 2002. and those termed ‘gentling studies’. Although the results have often been contradictory. Allowing cows shortly after parturition to approach a squatting experimenter and sniff the outstretched hands that were smeared with fetal ﬂuid subsequently reduced their restlessness during milking and their fear responses to a stationary familiar experimenter. These studies on cattle. 2003). Hemsworth and Barnett (1992) also found that regular but brief patting or stroking of pigs from either 0 to 3 or 9 to 12 weeks of age was more effective in reducing fear responses to humans based on their approach behaviour to a familiar experimenter at 18 weeks of age than when imposed at 3–6 and 6–9 weeks of age. reduced activity and defaecation in an open-ﬁeld test. early handling effects may not necessarily be a consequence of handling per se but may be a consequence of acute stress early in life advancing the rate of development (Schaefer. In contrast. pigs and sheep indicate that. which involved brief stroking of post-weaned animals. including to the presence of humans. those termed ‘handling studies’. These results suggest that the parturient cow may not only be attracted to her newborn at this time. improved performance in learning tasks and reduced stress responses to subsequent stressors (Dewsbury. This literature is very extensive and basically consists of two types of studies. 1968). although farm animals may be more sensitive to handling at an early age. However. in an experiment using the same total duration of positive handling but imposed at different periods in life. pigs may be more sensitive to handling at 0–3 weeks of age and handling at 9–12 weeks may also be effective perhaps because it was the most recent handling.. 1992). The effects of early handling of cattle and sheep have also been studied. but that she may be more sensitive in general. Furthermore. (1987. There is some limited evidence that farm animals may be sensitive to human contact at other times of their life.. suggesting that any early handling effects were dissipated by subsequent human contact during routine husbandry and/or testing. Thus. Brief human contact. Thus. 2001.Human–Animal Interactions 69 interaction with a stationary familiar experimenter in tests from 10 to 24 weeks of age in comparison with minimal handling of pigs early in life. subsequent handling is also inﬂuential and has the potential to modify such early learning effects. which involved brief removal of pre-weaned animals from their home cages. These results have been interpreted as a consequence of either direct stimulation or acute stress advancing the rate of development of some behavioural and physiological processes. Hemsworth et al. The literature on early handling of rodents is relevant to the discussion of the possible effects of early handling of farm animals. Krohn et al. 2001. 1989a) studied the effects of human contact at the ﬁrst calving of dairy cows. consisting of stroking and assisting calves and lambs to feed in the ﬁrst few days of life has been shown to have long-term effects on the behavioural response of calves and lambs to humans (Boivin et al.
(2001. Similarly. Both groups of handled chickens showed less avoidance of the experimenter than non-handled chickens. and found that chickens reared with visual contact with humans showed less avoidance of a stationary experimenter standing in front of their cages than those reared in isolation of humans. Jones (1993) found that regular gentle stroking of the wire-mesh wall of the chickens’ cages reduced the subsequent avoidance of the stationary experimenter in comparison with regular catching and stroking. both groups of pigs subsequently showed similar approach behaviour to a stationary experimenter. have speciﬁcally examined the effects of human visual contact on fear. Thus. Understanding the sensitivity of animals to human contact is obviously critical in handling animals in a manner that minimizes their fear responses to humans. but via effects on behavioural development. there is evidence that other forms of human contact may affect the behavioural responses of farm animals to humans. Boivin et al. hit or shock with a battery-operated prodder. Jones (1993) found that young chickens regularly observing others being caught and stroked showed similar avoidance of the stationary experimenter standing in front of their cages to those that were regularly caught and stroked. Chickens and laying hens appear to be particularly sensitive to visual contact with humans. will increase fear responses to humans. termed ‘ﬂighty’ and ‘docile’. However. Indeed. particularly obviously negative ones such as a slap. as discussed in the previous section. is surprising. Hemsworth et al. Murphy and Duncan (1978) examined the effects of regular visual contact with stockpeople undertaking routine husbandry on two stocks of birds. so the effects of visual and auditory contact with humans on farm animals are discussed in this section (3. Furthermore. while there is some evidence that both may contribute. habituation of the bird’s . As both treatments allowed birds the opportunity to observe the experimenter either catching and stroking birds or stroking the cage wall. The handling effects were more pronounced and longer lasting in the so-called docile stock. 3. for many farm animals. early weaning may also affect these responses. A number of studies.2 Visual contact with humans The handling treatments in the studies described in the previous section also involved visual and auditory contact with humans and thus this non-tactile contact may have contributed to the handling effects.3). tactile interactions by humans that are likely to occur in commercial settings are important determinants of the animals’ fear of humans. particularly on poultry.70 Chapter 3 to humans. While it is easy to appreciate that regular negative tactile interactions with animals. or even to non-tactile contact that intuitively appears to be of a minor or moderate negative nature such as shouting or unexpected movement.5. (1986b) found that while pigs that were artiﬁcially reared and regularly handled early in life showed increased locomotion in a novel arena in comparison with those that were dam reared and regularly handled. 2002) have shown that positive handling without early weaning affects the subsequent behavioural responses of lambs to humans.5. the sensitivity of livestock to brief tactile contact.
either 30 s daily of positive handling or 5 s daily of negative handling. and (iii) in adulthood. positive or negative handling imposed with the experimenter standing at either 0–45 cm.31 0.1.40 0. Recently.34 (i) during rearing. also suggests that the latter handling may contain aversive elements for birds.40 0. the positive or negative handling imposed with the experimenter standing at either 0–45 cm.40 0. During each approach and each withdrawal. such as active interaction and tactile interaction by humans. . The effects of handling on the proportion of hens remaining in the front half of their cages in the close presence of the experimenter at 31 and 36 weeks of age (from Edwards. Proportion of hens at the front of the cage Treatmenta Human contact during rearing Additional human contact Minimal human contact Nature of handling in adulthood Positive Negative Proximity of handling in adulthood 0–45 cm from the cage 45–75 cm from the cage 75–105 cm from the cage aTreatments: 31 weeks 36 weeks 0. (ii) in adulthood (from 20 weeks of age). 45–75 cm or 75–105 cm from the cage. Furthermore.37 0. additional human contact during rearing reduced avoidance behaviour to the experimenter at both ages. The birds received the following treatments: (i) during rearing.42 0. 45–75 cm or 75–105 cm from the cage. (ii) in adulthood. Edwards (2009).38 0. based on the proportion of birds that remained close to the experimenter. the experimenter recorded whether the hen was in the front half or the back half of the cage. either minimal human contact or additional human contact (involving 12 min daily visual contact with a stationary experimenter). either positive handling or negative handling. the nature and proximity of handling in adulthood affected Table 3.1.Human–Animal Interactions 71 fear responses to humans over time with repeated exposure to humans may have been responsible for the reduction in fear of humans. examined three main handling effects on adult laying hens. Positive handling involved slow approach and standing stationary while negative handling included unexpected appearance and fast movement by the experimenter. As shown in Table 3.48 0. 2009). The avoidance response of the hens in their cages to an approaching human was assessed twice in adulthood (at 31 and 36 weeks of age) in a test in which two approaches to and two withdrawals from the caged birds were made by the experimenter over 20 s. in a factorial design study. The fact that visual contact without tactile contact in the treatment involving stroking the cage wall was more effective in reducing fear than picking up and stroking the bird.48 0.47 0.42 0. and (iii) in adulthood. either minimal human contact or additional visual human contact.46 0.44 0.
12 7. (1986) found that pigs that were regularly exposed to an experimenter rapidly and closely approaching them showed similar avoidance Table 3. 1981). with fear levels therefore increasing rather than declining. Handling treatments Variable Forward score to humana Corticosterone concentrations in response to handling (nmol/l) Eggs produced per day per hen (%) aA Minimal human contact 1. The observations that laying hens housed in cages in the top tier of a multi-tiered battery and in outside rows with narrow corridors are more fearful of humans than those in lower tiers and in inner rows have at least been partly interpreted in terms of both less contact with stockpeople during routine husbandry and often unexpected close contact when it occurs (Barnett and Hemsworth. perhaps owing to habituation of fear responses. Hemsworth et al.2). .2.4 high score reﬂects less avoidance of the experimenter. Gonyou et al. 1989. stress physiology and productivity of laying hens (from Barnett et al. unexpected human contact (see Table 3. birds that had received regular human contact showed less avoidance of an approaching experimenter and had lower plasma corticosterone concentrations after handling than birds that had received minimal human contact. involving positive elements such as slow and deliberate movements.22 11. 1994). 1989). Effects of handling on the behavioural responses. reduced the subsequent avoidance behaviour of adult birds in comparison with minimal human contact that at times contained elements of sudden.7 83. At 6 weeks of age. The birds that had received regular visual contact with humans also had lower plasma corticosterone concentrations following handling than birds that had received only minimal human contact.72 Chapter 3 avoidance behaviour at 31 weeks and at both 31 and 36 weeks of age. Hemsworth and Barnett. (1994c) examined the effects of regular close visual contact with humans on the fear responses of young chickens to humans. The nature of visual human contact in adulthood had less inﬂuence on fear of humans. As the unexpected appearance of a stimulus is fear provoking for most animals (McFarland. the birds that received minimal human contact in the study by Barnett et al. There is some limited evidence that pigs may also be affected by visual contact with humans. respectively.1 Additional human contact 2. (1994) also demonstrated the inﬂuential effects of visual contact with humans imposed during adulthood on fear responses of laying hens to humans.. These results indicate that additional human contact during rearing and the proximity of human contact in adulthood affected the avoidance behaviour of adult hens to humans: additional human contact during rearing and close human contact in adulthood resulted in less avoidance of humans. Regular visual contact. (1994) may have sensitized rather than habituated to the repeated but unexpected exposure to humans.9 89. Barnett et al.
however. Research has shown that human interactions. Thus. are likely to increase fear responses in cattle. While there were no differences in the approach behaviour of young pigs to humans using a loud harsh voice or soft quiet voice. based on the effort required to move the animals to the location in which they were treated.Human–Animal Interactions 73 of the stationary experimenter to that of pigs that regularly received negative tactile interactions. Regular exposure of young pigs to humans standing erect or approaching them results in less approach to a stationary unfamiliar experimenter than regular exposure to humans squatting or avoiding them (Hemsworth et al.3 Auditory and olfactory contact with humans Few studies have examined olfactory and auditory contact with humans on farm animals. found that dairy cows showed a similar aversion to being shocked with a battery-operated prodder as to shouting by humans. based on both the time and effort required to move the animals to the location in which they were treated. 1986a). indicating the sensitivity of . while contact such as talking. such as slaps. 1986a). using aversion learning techniques in which animals have the opportunity to learn to associate a location with a speciﬁc treatment. as non-tactile contact with humans may accompany negative tactile interactions by humans. cows showed greater aversion to being hit and shouted at than to brushing or feeding. such as a shock from a battery-operated prodder. positive visual contact may be more effective in reducing levels of fear for humans in poultry than human tactile contact. Indeed.. particularly for poultry. whenever they failed to avoid the approaching experimenter. In conclusion. particularly on the hands. rapid speed of movement by humans and sudden and unexpected exposure to humans may be fear provoking. limited interaction appears to be inﬂuential in determining fear responses to humans. hits and shocks with a batteryoperated prodder. young pigs showed less approach to a human wearing gloves than to an ungloved human (Hemsworth et al. Furthermore. Care is required in interpreting studies in which individual cues have been studied. Relatively little is known of the visual contact with humans that may elevate fear levels in farm animals. It is possible that human odours. For example. tactile and visual contact with humans are important determinants of the fear responses of many farm animals to humans.5. Pajor et al. In contrast. because animals experienced with humans may learn through conditioning to associate insigniﬁcant cues from humans with those that have signiﬁcance for the animals. there is evidence that poultry and limited evidence that pigs are sensitive to visual contact with humans. auditory cues from humans may be associated with negative tactile interactions by humans. (1999) studied the effects of noise on cattle and found that both heart rate and movement were greater when animals were exposed to an audio recording of humans shouting than to a recording of the clanging noise of metal-on-metal.. pigs and sheep. are used by pigs in recognition of humans and that masking these odours may create uncertainty or novelty for the animals. slow speed of movement and stroking are likely to reduce fear in farm animals. Waynert et al. (2000). 3.
but may also markedly reduce growth and reproductive performance in pigs.6 Effects of Fear of Humans on the Productivity of Farm Animals Some of the handling studies reviewed in Section 3.5 also examined handling effects on animal productivity and most of these studies indicate that productivity is reduced in situations in which handling increases the animal’s fear of humans. P < 0.6. The magnitude of the associations between fear and productivity were remarkably similar in these two on-farm studies (e. which estimate the degree of association. There are also reports of fear for humans affecting reproduction: negative handling reduced pregnancy rate but not sexual receptivity in gilts (Hemsworth et al. accounted for about 20% of the variation in reproductive performance across the study farms. are reviewed in this section. (2006). 1981b. 1992) and Pearce et al. 1981b. between time to approach within 0. observations in the Dutch and Australian pig industries have revealed signiﬁcant relationships. The results of these handling studies. as distinct from the ﬁrst.3. 2003) and fear of humans in sows has been reported by Hemsworth et al. subsequent handling is also inﬂuential and has the potential to modify such early learning effects. (2009) to be positively associated with crushing of piglets within 24 h of parturition.. the correlation coefﬁcients. Hemsworth et al.. fear of humans in oestrous sows reduced their time spent near boars when in the presence of humans (Pedersen et al. and yet signiﬁcant fear–productivity relationships were . to be positively associated with percentage of stillborn piglets.54. while Paterson and Pearce (1989.55 and −0. genetics.. Furthermore.5. particularly if weaned early. (1999).05. which at times may appear to be innocuous and inoffensive. 1986c). nutrition and locality. The direction of the relationships indicates that reproductive performance was low at farms where breeding females were highly fearful of humans and the magnitude of these relationships indicate that variation in fear of humans.1). but not by Andersen et al. between fear of humans and the reproductive performance of pigs (Hemsworth et al. (1989) found no effects of regular negative handling on growth performance. and by Lensink et al. housing systems. Although farm animals may be more sensitive to human contact early in life.74 Chapter 3 farm animals to brief human contact. 1989b). farms varied substantially in terms of size. together with some observations on fear–productivity relationships in the livestock industries.. 3. based on farm averages. In a second study. 1989b). 3. A summary of some of the results of handling studies at our laboratory are presented in Table 3.1 Pigs Negative tactile interactions imposed brieﬂy but regularly on pigs not only result in high levels of fear of humans (see Section 3. Seabrook and Bartle (1992) also reported growth depressions in pigs following negative handling.g.5 m of the experimenter and farrowing rate were −0.
samples remotely collected at hourly intervals from 08.1 145 0. The results of handling studies on fear of humans.05 4. however. stress physiology and productivity of pigs. Handling treatment Experiment and variable Hemsworth et al.5 165 641 1. amount and imposition of handling treatments. may be responsible for these apparently contradictory results. For example. a behavioural response of animals to an apparently aversive stimulus (e.. kg/day) Adrenal weights (g) aFear bBlood 75 Positive Minimalc Negative 119 709 2. 1992. As mentioned earlier.1 147 837 120 33 2. differences between studies in the nature.7 10 455 1. found. g/day) Hemsworth et al. g/day) Cortisol concentrations (ng/ml)b Hemsworth et al. g/day) Cortisol concentrations (ng/ml)b Gonyou et al. (1986) Time to interact with human (s)a Growth rate (8–18 weeks.94 4. although . 1989.7 – – – 79 1.00 h.5 52 0. 1989).Human–Animal Interactions Table 3. which demonstrate the robustness of the fear–productivity relationship in the industry. (1986c) Time to interact with human (s)a Pregnancy rate of gilts (%) Cortisol concentrations (ng/ml)b Hemsworth et al.81 assessed on the basis of the approach behaviour of pigs to a stationary experimenter.00 to 17.97 3. and in opportunity for the animals to approach or withdraw. g/day) Cortisol concentrations (ng/ml)b Hemsworth and Barnett (1991) Time to interact with human (s)a Growth rate (from 15 kg for 10 weeks.4 160 404 2.82 – – – 81 881 96 57 1. Pearce et al. (1981a) Time to interact with human (s)a Growth rate (11–22 weeks. (1987) Time to interact with human (s)a Growth rate (7–13 weeks. withdrawal to negative handling by humans) in some situations may be an effective strategy to enable the animals to cope with this stimulus without having to resort to any long-term physiological adjustment. cTreatment involving minimal human contact.1 73 897 48 88 1. (1996b) Time to interact with human (s)a Growth rate (from 63 kg for 4 weeks.6 55 656 1. There is no obvious explanation for this lack of effects in the studies by Paterson and colleagues. several studies have shown no effects of regular negative handling on the growth performance and stress physiology of young pigs (Paterson and Pearce.3. There may also be genetic differences between pigs in their ability to cope with chronic stressors.8 92 458 1.g.03 157 669 3.
gallisepticum in comparison with minimal human contact. insulin-like growth hormone factor 1 (IGF-1) and other growth factors. while weight loss after fasting was not affected by handling. 1980) found that frequent but brief human contact of an apparent positive nature. Barnett et al. 1982). 1982) and. together with depressions in growth and reproductive performance (Barnett et al. Moberg. 1983. antibody response to an antigen and resistance to M. Gross and Siegel (1979. both genotypes exhibited similar hypothalamic– pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis responses (in terms of percentage increases in cortisol in the long term) to restraint on tethers.2 Poultry Handling studies on poultry generally indicate that handling treatments likely to increase the birds’ fear of humans may depress the growth performance and immune function in chickens. The mechanism responsible for the adverse effects of high fear on productivity appears to be a chronic stress response. (1988) found that although there were differences between two genotypes of pigs in their basal plasma cortisol concentrations.. handling treatments that resulted in high fear levels also produced either a sustained elevation in the basal concentrations of the stress hormone cortisol or enlargement of the adrenal glands. the growth axis is inhibited at several levels during stress (Kaltas and Chrousos.1). Prolonged activation of the HPA axis leads to suppression of growth hormone (GH) secretion. 3. 1980. chickens that had received brief positive human contact were more resistant to Staphylococcus aureus (Gross and Siegel. The magnitude of the fear–productivity relationships observed in the pig industry demonstrates that fear of humans should be considered as a major factor associated with reduced productivity of commercial pigs. 1992. feed conversion. Although the behavioural response of the chickens to humans was not quantiﬁed. there was better feed conversion in the chickens that had received brief positive human contact (Gross and Siegel. As discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2. 2007). 2000).6.5. while corticosteroids can induce resistance in target tissues to the effects of GH. Gross and Siegel (1981) found that chickens that received regular positive human contact from an early age had improved feed conversion and were more resistant to E.1. 2000).. There is considerable evidence in the literature that stress hormones may adversely affect growth and reproductive performance by disrupting protein metabolism and key reproductive endocrine events..76 Chapter 3 there is little evidence of this in the literature. coli infection than chickens that . The catabolic effects of ACTH and corticosteroids are also well known (Elsasser et al. in a number of experiments on pigs. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction (Clarke et al..3). and consequently the suppression of growth. from an early age improved growth rates. 2000). because. the authors stated that the handled birds were easier to handle during weighing and blood sampling. such as gentle touching. talking and offering food on the hand. Corticosteroids also support the synthesis and action of adrenaline in stimulating glycogenolysis and lipolysis (Matteri et al. under conditions of water deprivation. For example. Table 3. Furthermore. in experiments with young chickens.
(2002) found that while there were no effects on body weight. mainly involving capture and brief restraint. In contrast. Gross and Siegel. Kehrli et al. Barnett et al. regular visual contact with humans early in life increased the antibody response to Newcastle disease vaccine and reduced heterophil to lymphocyte ratio following capture and restraint in a crate. (2002) and Zulkiﬂi and Siti Nor Azah (2004) examined the effects of handling on the physiology and productivity of meat chickens. 1976. 1983.2). 2004). as well as other birds that either were stroked but also observed others being stroked. Reichmann et al. Edwards (2009) also recently found that regular exposure to an experimenter moving slowly and predictably increased egg production in hens in comparison with regular exposure to an experimenter using startling and unpredictable behaviour. variation in the nature of handling between these studies. Studies conducted on meat chickens and laying hens in the ﬁeld also support the proposition that high levels of fear of humans may limit the productivity . Zulkiﬂi et al.Human–Animal Interactions 77 either received minimal human contact or had been regularly scared by shouting and banging on their cages.1. Furthermore. feed conversion and mortality. The authors speculated that the lower productivity of birds in the latter treatment may be a consequence of a chronic stress response because there was evidence of immunosuppression in these fearful birds: the cell-mediated immune response to a mitogen was lower in laying hens that received reduced and unexpected human contact (Barnett et al. Birds that were regularly caught and stroked early in life had improved growth rates and feed conversion compared with those that received minimal human contact (Zulkiﬂi and Siti Nor Azah. unexpected human contact (Table 3. Zulkiﬂi et al. For example. were caught and suspended by the legs or were caught and suspended by the legs but observed others handled in a similar manner. This change in the distribution of white blood cells may be indicative of reduced stress because. 1981). 1999).. Buckland et al. (1978) found no effects of similar handling on the growth performance of either young meat or layer chickens. (1994) found that regular visual contact. 1994). Because handling may vary from positive to negative in nature.5. is associated with increased growth performance of chickens (Thompson. as discussed in earlier (Section 2. stressors can impair immune function. resulted in higher egg production than a treatment which involved minimal human contact that at times contained elements of sudden. whereas Freeman and Manning (1979) suggested that regular handling decreased growth performance in layer chickens. involving positive elements such as slow and deliberate movements. had lower heterophil to lymphocyte ratios than non-handled birds.1).. More recently. through effects on fear and stress. that reduced the subsequent avoidance behaviour of adult laying hens to the experimenter. A handling study on adult poultry at our laboratory also indicates that high fear levels will limit the productivity of poultry. with evidence that increasing corticosteroid concentrations results in a redistribution of white blood cells (e. These handled birds. Jones and Hughes. may have been responsible for the variation in the effects of handling on growth performance. (1974) demonstrated negative effects of handling involving blood sampling by cardiac puncture on the growth performance of meat chickens.g. Other studies have also shown that handling.
(1996a) found that avoidance of an approaching experimenter was negatively correlated with the efﬁciency of feed conversion of meat chickens at 22 commercial farms (correlation coefﬁcient of −0. P < 0. the level of fear of humans was signiﬁcantly and negatively related to the efﬁciency of feed conversion of meat chickens at the farm (Hemsworth et al.05). however. .. Signiﬁcant negative relationships.75 1.05 2.7. have also been found between the level of fear of humans and the productivity of commercial laying hens. 3. In a study involving 22 commercial farms. For example.55. 1994c). avoidance by meat chickens of an approaching experimenter accounted for 29% of the variation between farms in feed conversion (Fig.85 1. between fear of humans and feed conversion at 22 commercial meat chicken farms (Hemsworth et al. 3. and Cransberg et al. The relationship. based on farm averages. The egg production of laying hens at 14 commercial farms was negatively related to the level of fear of humans by birds at the farms (Barnett 80 Average number of birds remaining near experimenter/observational scan 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 –10 1. (2000) suggested that differences in the company’s payment structure at the time of the most recent study may have put more emphasis on mortality at the expense of food conversion.95 Feed to gain ratio (kg/kg) 2. Farms in these three studies were under contract to the same processor.01).49. P < 0. Similarly. Avoidance of an approaching experimenter was also negatively correlated with growth rate of meat chickens in this study (correlation coefﬁcient of −0.15 Fig.78 Chapter 3 of commercial birds.. there was a signiﬁcant positive relationship between the level of fear of humans and mortality early in life.7). Signiﬁcant negative relationships. have been found between the level of fear of humans and the productivity of commercial meat chickens. Hemsworth et al. based on farm averages. Cransberg et al. based on farm averages. In contrast. (2000) found no evidence of a signiﬁcant relationship between feed conversion and level of fear of humans at 24 commercial meat chicken farms. 1994c).
Therefore. These ﬁndings in commercial settings. There is some evidence from handling studies that negative handling may depress milk yield in cows. Rushen et al. Thus. therefore. with the consequent elevations of plasma corticosterone concentrations. 1984).3 Dairy cattle Most of the cattle handling studies that have studied effects on productivity have been on dairy cattle. (2002) found that the frequency of negative behaviours by stockpeople was negatively correlated with average milk yield. also suggest that milk yield may be at risk when cows are fearful of humans. a chronic stress response or a series of acute stress responses in the presence of humans may be responsible for the depressed productivity in fearful poultry. was negatively correlated with average milk yield and conception rate to ﬁrst insemination and positively correlated with milk cortisol concentrations at the farm. Further. Bredbacka (1988) reported that egg mass production was lower in hens that showed increased avoidance of humans. might also be expected to impair poultry productivity. assessed on the basis of the approach behaviour of cows to a stationary experimenter in an unfamiliar arena. there is evidence of negative fear–productivity relationships in the dairy industry. regular exposure to stressful stimuli. In an experiment examining the effects of cage position on fear and egg production of laying hens. assessed on the basis of both the approach behaviour of cows to a stationary experimenter and the avoidance behaviour of cows to an approaching experimenter. exogenous elevations of circulating corticosterone concentrations have been shown to adversely affect growth rate and feed conversion in chickens (Bellamy and Leonard. As with observations in the pig and poultry industries.Human–Animal Interactions 79 et al. Seabrook (1972a) reported that cows in high-yielding herds in Britain tended to be the most willing to approach the milker.. 1989).6. (1999) found that dairy cows had . The mechanisms responsible are unclear. Adams. In a study examining inter-farm correlations between fear of humans. and milk yield at 66 dairy farms. 1984. protein catabolism and energy retention or excretion in chickens (Siegel and van Kampen. In observations on the behavioural response of laying hens to an experimenter. 1965. and cow productivity at 31 dairy farms. 1980. (2000) found that fear of humans was negatively correlated with the average milk yield of cows at the farm. 3. Support for this suggestion is provided by the known effects of corticosteroids on nitrogen balance. Furthermore. Breuer et al. there is evidence that high fear levels may reduce the productivity of poultry. the authors found that the time cows spent near the stationary experimenter was negatively correlated with milk cortisol concentrations at the farm. (2000) found no signiﬁcant inter-farm correlations between fear of humans. pushes and hits. Saadoun et al. Waiblinger et al. level of fear of humans was also signiﬁcantly and negatively related to egg production and efﬁciency of feed conversion (Hemsworth and Barnett. 1987). the frequency of negative interactions used by stockpeople. Bartov et al. to return from pasture and to enter the milking parlour. 1992). Siegel and van Kampen. While Hemsworth et al. such as slaps. 1968.. As seen in fearful pigs..
Furthermore. The former cows also had higher heart rates at milking. no such effects were found in a more recent study (Arave et al. which involves intense human contact.. they also had higher cortisol concentrations in the afternoon in isolation of humans. Average daily weight gain of the calves was predicted by the stockperson behaviour towards calves.. However. patting. such as acetates. Feed conversion was also predicted by the stockperson’s behaviour. thereby interfering with milk synthesis (Breuer et al.1). such as touching. 1997). were found to have impaired milk let-down in comparison with human-reared goats (Lyons. with improved feed conversion associated with more positive behaviour. Dam-reared goats. 2003). Breuer et al. . The authors of the earlier study proposed that humanreared calves may have ‘imprinted’ upon the stockperson and thus may have adapted more easily to the milking procedure. suggesting that they may have been chronically stressed by the negative handling treatment. Moderate or forceful slaps imposed brieﬂy before or after milking when animals failed to avoid humans increased ﬂight distance and tended to reduce milk yield in heifers (6% reduction in yield over 8 weeks. 1997. the substrates may be diverted elsewhere. The long-term stress response of cows and how these responses affect milk yield are poorly understood. 1992). 1992). 1993. glucose and amino acids.80 Chapter 3 increased residual milk when milked in the presence of an experimenter who had hit or shocked them with a battery-operated cattle prodder than in the presence of an experimenter who had brushed. dairy heifers that were slapped or hit whenever they approached or failed to avoid the experimenter were more fearful of the experimenter based on their approach behaviour than those that were positively handled with slow and deliberate movements and pats and strokes (Breuer et al. In contrast. they also found that the isolated calves had a shorter ﬂight distance to an experimenter than control calves.. were predictive of calf mortality: mortality was lower at farms that were large and in which the stockperson displayed more positive behaviour to calves. One key function of the stress response is to divert food and substrates. Stressors that result in an acute stress response may depress milk yield owing to inhibition of milk let-down (Bruckmaier et al. implicating the secretion of catecholamines under the inﬂuence of the autonomic nervous system as affecting milk let-down in these fearful cows. fed and gently spoken to them. and so during a chronic stress response. (2000a) studied human–animal interactions at 50 veal calf units. such as positive behaviour to calves and farm size. 1989). which showed increased avoidance of humans. (1985) found that dairy calves reared in visual and tactile isolation from other calves produced more milk in adulthood than herd mates reared either in groups or individually but with visual and tactile contact with calves. Lensink et al. Bruckmaier and Blum. away from normal day-today functions such as growth and reproduction (Sapolsky. It is also of interest that several variables. with higher weight gain associated with more positive behaviour.. while these fearful heifers showed higher plasma cortisol concentrations in the presence of the experimenter. It is also of interest that Arave et al. Creel and Albright (1988) rejected this hypothesis on the basis of the similar approach behaviour of isolated and control calves to a stationary experimenter. talking gently and allowing calves to suck ﬁngers. As reported earlier (Section 3.. 1998). 2003).5.
castration and branding. As referred to in the previous section. (1988) found that beef cattle that were the most active and vocal when restrained in a weighing stall had the most carcass bruising and tended to have tougher meat following slaughter. Further research is required to examine the effects of high fear levels on the productivity of dairy cattle. 1989).Human–Animal Interactions 81 In contrast. Petherick et al. in which there are opportunities for fear responses to impair animal productivity and welfare. called ‘ﬂight speed’. Fordyce et al.6. 2002) and so this relationship with growth suggests that feedlot cattle which are more stressed by environmental change or uncertainty may suffer depressions in productivity. There is evidence that beef cattle which are the most difﬁcult to handle may suffer depressions in their productivity and meat quality at slaughter. therefore. (2000c) found that calves which received positive handling during rearing had similar growth rates to those that received minimal human contact. In studying a similar behavioural response to restraint. exhibited greater milk ejection impairment than human-reared goats (Lyons. ﬂight speed was moderately and negatively correlated with average daily gain. However. ﬂight speed in response to this brief restraint is considered a measure of temperament (Petherick et al. Although these extensively grazed cattle would have received limited human contact.4 Other farm animals There is very limited evidence that high fear levels may reduce the productivity of other farm animals. Burrow and Dillion (1997) found that the exit speed of beef cattle. this contact would have generally been associated with aversive experiences such as restraint. a component of these responses would be speciﬁcally to humans. based on approach behaviour to a stationary . (2009b) found that while behavioural measures of fear for humans were not correlated with average daily gain in beef cattle housed in feedlots. In more extensive management settings. was negatively correlated with weight gain. This evidence applies generally to situations in which animals have intense or frequent contact with humans and. In contrast. and thus these observations may reﬂect general fearfulness and/or fear of humans. Although part of the behavioural responses of cattle when restrained in a weighing stall would be responses to restraint and novelty.3). while positive handling of feedlot cattle involving feeding and talking reduced fear of humans. 3. chronic effects of negative human contact on the productivity of livestock may be less likely because of less contact with humans and the greater opportunity for the animals to control their contact with humans. These results support those of similar but more extensive studies on pigs and poultry. Lensink et al.. The dam-reared goats received considerably less human contact than the human-reared animals. dam-reared goats. there is evidence from observations in the dairy industry and handling studies on dairy calves and cows that fear of humans may limit the productivity of commercial dairy calves and cows. As discussed earlier (Section 3. which showed increased avoidance of humans and lower cortisol responses in the presence of humans. In conclusion.
6. particularly young animals and breeding animals. Nevertheless. long-term relationships develop between humans and animals. Thus. behavioural and physiological responses to humans will also vary across species and across strains within species. many of which are far from superﬁcial.. There is evidence from studies in the industry and in the laboratory that these relationships may exert substantial effects on the behaviour. It is therefore proposed that the human–animal relationship may have practical implications for farm animals in production systems in which there are close or frequent human–animal interactions. physiology and productivity of commercial livestock. Nevertheless. 1965) was that intensivehoused livestock should be free from fear. handling treatments that resulted in high fear levels in pigs resulted in not only an acute stress response in the presence of humans but also a chronic stress response measured on the basis of a sustained elevation in the basal concentrations of cortisol in isolation from humans (Table 3. Thus. It is also important to recognize the implications of fear for humans in the welfare of farm animals. Most of the evidence in the literature is from studies on dairy cattle. physiology and productivity of livestock may be less likely because of less contact with humans. indeed. pigs and poultry.82 Chapter 3 experimenter outside the pen.3). Research reviewed in this chapter has shown that farm animals that are both highly fearful of humans and in regular contact with humans may experience not only an acute stress response in the presence of humans but also a chronic stress response that is evident even in the absence of humans. For example. Chronic . 1992) and. chronic effects of negative human contact on the behaviour. Productivity and Welfare In intensive livestock production there is frequent and often close contact between stockpeople and animals. chronic effects of negative human contact on the productivity of livestock may be less likely because of less contact with humans and the greater opportunity for the animals to control their contact with humans. acute effects are likely in situations in which fearful animals are in close contact with humans. in addition to the concern about animals experiencing an undesirable emotion state such as fear. In more extensive management settings. animals that are fearful of humans are likely to experience both acute stress in the close presence of humans and handling difﬁculties. one of the key recommendations proposed to the UK Parliament by the Brambell Committee in 1965 (Brambell et al.. depending on the heritable components of temperament within species. Furthermore. Fear is generally considered an undesirable emotional state of suffering in both humans and animals (Jones and Waddington. fearful animals are more likely to sustain injuries trying to avoid humans during routine inspections and handling. 2009a). positive handling did not affect ﬂight speed (Petherick et al. in more extensive management settings.3). and as a consequence of these interactions.7 Conclusions: Fear. 3. as discussed later (Section 5. it is also ethically unacceptable to have animals that are chronically stressed. however there is limited evidence on other species such as sheep and goats. So while stimulus-speciﬁc responses to humans will develop as a consequence of the history of interactions with humans.
Human–Animal Interactions 83 stress may also result in immunosuppression which. may have serious consequences on the health of the animals. in turn. . fear in farm animals can have an impact on farm animal welfare and so this topic of fear in farm animals is a legitimate welfare consideration. The magnitude of the effects of fear for humans observed on the productivity of livestock in both commercial and laboratory settings indicates the potential for improving the productivity and the welfare of farm animals by identifying and manipulating those human factors that are inﬂuential determinants of animal fear in commercial settings. The following chapters explore these opportunities. Clearly.
Coleman) .J. This review will lead to a discussion of a theoretical framework to be used to consider the development and maintenance of attitudes and how attitudes can be used to predict human behaviour. The aim in this chapter is to discuss the human characteristics that underlie stockperson behaviour.H. Human–Livestock Interactions. physiology and productivity of farm animals. This discussion. have substantial effects on the behaviour. Hemsworth and G. will be described. 84 © CAB International 2011. The existence of these inﬂuential human– animal relationships indicates the potential for improving the productivity and welfare of farm animals by identifying and manipulating the key human factors that regulate these relationships. which can result in the formation of long-term relationships between humans and animals. in turn. in which a model of stockperson– animal interactions. being causally related to some characteristics of humans that are susceptible to change. the nature and frequency of human–animal interactions in livestock production were discussed in detail and it was shown that these interactions.1 Introduction In Chapter 3. the concepts and theoretical framework considered in both Chapters 4 and 5 will be utilized in Chapter 6. will provide a sound basis for reviewing stockperson behaviours in Chapter 5: how they develop and their role in regulating farm animal behaviour. Second Edition (P.4 Attitudes of Stockpeople 4. The handling studies reported in the previous chapter have shown that the behaviour of humans inﬂuences the stress physiology and productivity of farm animals and thus the behaviour of stockpeople is an important factor in the effects of human–animal interactions on farm animal productivity and welfare. Furthermore. in turn. This rests on the human–animal relationships being causally related to the behaviour of humans and this behaviour. based on research in the livestock industries.
Attitudes are learned and therefore able to be changed. and we all think we understand what it means. how they are formed and how they may inﬂuence behaviour. The role of some of these kinds of factors. if we believe that a particular brand of motor vehicle has outstanding performance and appearance and we like it more than any other brand. In fact. we think of attitudes as opinions.2 Stockperson Attitudes and Animal Welfare and Productivity The psychology literature reveals that the important dispositional factor in predicting human behaviour is attitude. at least.g. we are likely to have a positive attitude towards that car and. inanimate objects or even ideas. We may have attitudes towards people. As we shall see later in this chapter. 1980). A statement that either explicitly or implicitly characterizes . opinions are verbal expressions of attitudes and our describing of attitudes as opinions does not really provide any insight into the nature of attitudes. For example. In order to improve animal performance and welfare by manipulating stockperson behaviour in livestock production.2. it is important to look more closely at the various meanings of the term. it is easy to see that there may be a whole range of issues. Typically. things and events.Attitudes of Stockpeople 85 4. we infer peoples’ attitudes from what they say and do. For example. our intended behaviour (e. apart from attitude. in determining stockperson behaviour will be discussed in Chapter 6. whether we can sell our current car. In order to understand the nature of attitudes and their relevance to the actions of stockpeople in the workplace. what family and friends think of it and what cars friends and neighbours drive. an individual. and (iii) the idea that attitude expresses some positive or negative evaluation. Ajzen and Fishbein. what we think about other people. a species of animal or a particular animal. The evaluative nature of attitudes is what distinguishes them from other kinds of verbal expression. we would tend to buy that particular brand. that is. to get some insight into expected behaviour it is very important to be quite speciﬁc about the particular attitude object of interest. (ii) the idea that attitude is a tendency or disposition. apart from attitude. However.1 What are attitudes? The term attitude is widely used in everyday conversation and the media. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) deﬁned attitude as ‘a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour’. that we would need to consider before buying the car. when in the market to buy a car. a religion. we may have an attitude towards a political ideology. a race. It is important to realize that attitudes cannot be observed directly. Characterizing an attitude object is not simple. There are three key features to this deﬁnition: (i) the idea that attitudes are directed at an entity or thing. These include whether we can afford the car. 4. a thorough understanding of the development of attitudes and their relationship with behaviour is obviously required. animals. The notion of attitude as a tendency reﬂects the view held by psychologists that our attitudes tend to direct our behaviour or.
Affect refers to the emotional response that a person has towards some other person or object. reﬂects the underlying attitude. These three components are all correlated with each other and all contribute to an understanding of the underlying evaluative attitude dimension. This may reﬂect an underlying negative attitude towards working with pigs. expresses an evaluation of that object and. . In general. 1935). They are things that people believe to be true about a person or object. conation refers to a tendency to behave in a particular way. emotional response to the object (affect) and behavioural tendency towards the object (conation). psychologists have deﬁned three components to attitude: cognition. etc.2. therefore. A stockperson’s intention to avoid contact with pigs or to ﬁnish work in the piggery as quickly as possible are examples of conation and may also reﬂect an underlying negative attitude towards pigs.. beliefs and behavioural tendencies are expressions of an underlying attitude rather than components of an attitude. Albarracín and colleagues’ (Albarracín et al. Cognition refers to the thoughts that people have about some object. which is. In other words. therefore. cognitions are beliefs or subjective facts. favourable or unfavourable: they reﬂect a tendency for or against. Albarracín et al. Such expressions would be affective statements reﬂecting an underlying negative attitude. in turn. Finally. 2005) view that the three components are expressions of attitude rather than components of attitude is probably the most reasonable way to conceptualize attitudes in that the three components are outcomes rather than the underlying disposition as such. liked or disliked or even something to be enjoyed or not enjoyed. A stockperson may express a dislike of pigs or may ﬁnd them dirty. like or dislike.2 Measuring attitudes Attitudes cannot be measured directly but a person’s responses to a series of attitude statements in a questionnaire can be used to infer an underlying attitude.86 Chapter 4 something as good or bad. (2005) make the point that affect. These statements are usually designed to measure one or more of the three aspects of the expression of an attitude: the person’s beliefs about the object (cognition). Eagly and Chaiken (1993) seem to favour the view that these three components independently contribute to a person’s attitude towards an object. This means that measuring any one of the components will provide some indication of a person’s attitude. when we assess a person’s attitudes for the purpose of predicting subsequent behaviour towards the attitude object. A stockperson may believe that pigs are very difﬁcult to handle and require a lot of effort. Attitudes are. 4. affect and conation (Allport. There has been much discussion about the three-component concept of attitude. Thus. greedy or smelly. In other words. Historically. we are actually using a series of verbal responses to predict this behaviour by the person. an attitude is a person’s current judgement about a particular object. a product of an underlying judgement modiﬁed by relevant available information. The extent to which we like or dislike an object is an example of affective response.
1993). social pressure to conform in beliefs and behaviour also come from friends. attitudes may help the person to maximize positive experiences and to minimize negative experiences. Asch (1956) demonstrated that people would change . The identiﬁcation of these functions of attitudes reﬂects the belief among psychologists that attitudes have a motivating inﬂuence on our behaviour. Children learn to accept what parents say because parents control the rewards and punishment.2. a person may express a positive attitude towards a job if he or she has observed others enjoying similar work and if it is felt that it has status and security.4 Development of attitudes Attitudes are generally regarded as learned dispositions of a person. They develop initially as part of the socialization of the individual. Once the child reaches school age. attitudes are an expression of the personality of the individual. As a result. a person who takes pride in being a good stockperson may hold positive attitudes towards husbandry. such as a history of adverse workplace experiences.3 Functions of attitudes Katz (1960) proposed that attitudes serve four functions. acquisition of knowledge and the work ethic. they formed more and more negative stereotypes. Young children are dependent primarily upon their parents for information about how they should behave towards others. Stagner (1961) reports a study by Blake and Dennis (1943) who tracked the development of white children’s attitudes towards American blacks. attitudes that express a negative view of other races) is an example of this. A positive attitude to work is a consistent way of reﬂecting these various aspects of the job. First. there is an increasing inﬂuence of teachers.2. They are a reﬂection of the learning processes a person undergoes in the job. poor pay and little opportunity for advancement. Katz’s basic functions of attitudes remain current (Eagly and Chaiken. attitudes may meet the individual’s need to organize experience. school friends and television. a person’s attitudes are consistent with self-image. In school-age children and in adults. As the children developed. 4. Thus. a person will minimize emotional and. Secondly. very young children showed no particular attitude towards blacks. Thus. The expression of authoritarianism in ethnocentric attitudes (that is. Thus. One important aspect of the development of these attitudes is that they need not be based on direct experience. Finally. perhaps. physical investment in the job.or herself from the possible threat from an out-group (a group other than one’s own social. negative aspects of a job.or work-mates and from the media. Initially. attitudes may serve to protect a person from negative events. In a classic study. In livestock production. which were like those of their parents. Thirdly. may lead to a poor attitude to work. As a consequence. children’s attitudes come initially from their parents and other close family. In general. ethnic or work group) by assuming a superior stance. school. although there have been various elaborations of these functions of attitudes.Attitudes of Stockpeople 87 4. An authoritarian person protects him.
For example. the statement ‘I smoke cigarettes’ is dissonant with the belief ‘smoking is a health hazard’ but is consonant with the belief ‘smoking relaxes me’. there will be a system of attitudes which are more-or-less consistent with each other. For example.88 Chapter 4 their beliefs and their behaviour when pressured by others. for example. and this theory was later extended by Brehm and Cohen (1962) and Aronson (1969). therefore. and psychologists are no exception. it has led to a focus on the ways in which people process new information in the context of their existing attitudes.2.6 Attitudes and behaviour Most people. The theory is very broad. For example. beliefs or any pieces of knowledge) are dissonant if one element does not follow from the other and are consonant if one element does follow from the other. Not only are these attitudes consistent. In other words. How likely they were to change and the amount of this change depended on the size of the difference between the person’s beliefs and the others’ beliefs.5 Attitude systems A person’s attitude towards a speciﬁc subject or thing does not exist independently of his or her other attitudes. 4. attitudes represent a major class of dispositions. Cognitive dissonance theory has been the focus of a great deal of research. and the extent to which the person was in a minority. One of the most widely accepted theories of attitude consistency is that of Leon Festinger. the person may prefer the lunchtime company of people who don’t drink so that he or she will not be under social pressure to drink. a belief can be regarded as a cognitive element. Dissonance theory proposes that cognitive elements (that is. 4. how well do attitudes predict an individual’s behaviour? . 1988). If. The question arises. drinking at lunchtime and so on. This is particularly important when we seek to understand attitude change and to predict behaviour from attitudes. attempt to explain a person’s behaviour in terms of dispositions. In other words. we believe that people tend to do those things that are consistent with their underlying characteristics. While the origin of this tendency for consistency is a matter for some argument (Ajzen. In particular. a person believes that excessive drinking is bad. there is widespread acceptance of it as a well-established characteristic of human behaviour. It provides a framework within which the interrelationships between attitudes and behaviours can be understood. that person will also have related attitudes towards the cost of alcohol. but the person will also tend to behave in a way consistent with those attitudes. while treating inferiors with arrogance and detachment. an authoritarian person is likely to treat superiors with deference and unquestioning obedience. Festinger (1957) proposed his theory of cognitive dissonance to account for the way in which attitudes inﬂuence behaviour.2. This tendency to change is called conformity behaviour. As we have seen.
the advertising industry relies on a small percentage of consumers changing their attitudes and behaviour: it is an actuarial exercise rather than one of changing a particular individual’s attitudes. in order to get a reasonably accurate idea of how the proprietors would behave. generic attitudes are not good predictors of behaviour. owning a bible.15 were obtained.12–0. for example. when predicting a single behaviour from attitudes towards religion (e. As we shall see shortly. This research involved the assessment of people’s attitudes towards objects and the establishment of the relationship of these attitudes to speciﬁc behaviours. Hovland and his co-workers at Yale University were unable to demonstrate that attitudes were good predictors of behaviour (Hovland et al. In fact it is possible to think of many reasons. A very interesting study that demonstrated the uncertain relationship between generic attitudes and behaviour was reported by La Piere (1934). When La Piere sent questionnaires in the mail to the same proprietors.61–0. Campbell (1963) asserted that a single behavioural event may not be sufﬁcient to provide an accurate measure of behaviour and that patterns of behaviour should be measured. In La Piere’s study. This has practical implications for studying stockperson behaviour because it suggests that a variety of stockperson behaviours needs to be observed. This is only true in a sense. whether or not the person is thinking of giving up drinking and so on.71. it is very difﬁcult to determine whether any given individual will buy it. ﬁnancial contribution to a church. The question that immediately arises is ‘Why the discrepancy?’. the proprietors may have wished to avoid a scene with other guests. not merely a single handling bout with an animal.). 92% indicated that they would not be willing to accept Chinese guests. all but one of the operators of 250 restaurants and hotels in the USA served a visiting Chinese couple when the couple visited unannounced. or may have decided that this particular Chinese couple was respectable and not the kind of people they had in mind when answering the questionnaire. depending on the method used. for example. regular church attendance). In this study. the questionnaire answers were clearly at odds with the actual behaviour of the hotel proprietors.. Here. The advertising industry is based on the assumption that changing people’s beliefs about a product will inﬂuence them to buy the product. In fact. how loyal he or she is to a current brand. Fishbein and Ajzen (1974) reported that. depending on the method used.g.g. For instance. and also to have characterized the circumstances of their visit. 1953). . the correlations increased to 0.Attitudes of Stockpeople 89 Despite an intensive research programme directed towards clarifying the relationship between attitudes and behaviour. If a new beer is introduced into the market. etc. correlations of 0. It will depend on whether the person is already a beer drinker. When multiple behaviours were predicted from the same attitudes (e. La Piere’s study also illustrates that a speciﬁc behavioural situation may not provide the ideal context in which to predict behaviour from attitudes. practising Christian beliefs. the questionnaire would really have had to describe the particular Chinese couple in some detail. This illustrates that it is very important to identify the attitude object precisely if attitude is to be used to predict behaviour.
volitional behaviours. The Theory of Reasoned Action relies on attitudes towards speciﬁc behaviours rather than Demographic variables Personality traits Attitudes towards targets Beliefs that behaviour leads to outcomes Evaluation of outcomes Attitude towards the behaviour Intention Behaviour Fig. . In other words. The theory proposed that the three components of attitude discussed earlier.1. 1977. then a person is likely to do what he or she intends. 4. such as inability to perform a behaviour or lack of access to the behavioural situation.90 Chapter 4 A major development in the conceptualization of the relationship between attitudes and behaviour came with Fishbein and Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein. in other words. A simpliﬁed version of the Azjen and Fishbein (1980) model of the attitude–behaviour relationship. More speciﬁcally. A comprehensive picture of a later revision of the model is presented in Fig. The immediate cause of intended behaviour is a person’s attitude towards the behaviour in combination with the person’s subjective norms with respect to the behaviour. which represent a sequence in the development of behavioural outcomes. the beliefs that people hold. 1980). belief (cognition) and conation. can better be considered as three response tendencies. if there are no physical constraints. So long as there are no impediments to intention being translated into behaviour.1 (Ajzen and Fishbein. lead to the formation of attitudes. affect. 4. Intentions and actions then follow from these attitudes. the theory is useful for predicting behaviour. From Fig. 4. 1980). This theory was developed to deal with behaviours that were under the person’s control. when combined with their evaluations of those beliefs. it can be seen that the immediate cause of a person’s behaviour is intention. A person’s subjective norms refer to the extent to which a person believes that relevant other people would approve of the behaviour and the extent to which the person feels willing to comply with other people’s expectations. One important feature of this part of the theory is that the object of the attitude is not some general person (or animal) but a behaviour.1.
Farmers responded to each statement using a 5-point evaluative scale ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). An example of such a belief statement was ‘A farmer must seek to maximize proﬁts no matter what the costs in eroded soil or environmental damage’. Lynne and Rola (1988) ensured that. if a person holds a variety of beliefs that are consistent with each other. This study is a clear . evaluations and motivations are many and varied. Behaviour was measured in terms of whether or not the farmer engaged in at least one conservation practice. It is important to recognize that the Theory of Reasoned Action proposes that the important dispositional factor in predicting behaviour is attitude and that other dispositional factors. attitude questions used included ‘Farmers have a responsibility towards all those now living to use soil resources such as not to cause erosion’ and ‘Crops can be grown without soil. variation in attitude accounted for about a third of the variation in conservation behaviour. 1977). Attitudes are. so erosion is irrelevant’. various general attitudes and personality traits indirectly affect behaviour through their inﬂuence on beliefs.Attitudes of Stockpeople 91 objects for prediction of acts.. if a child thought that his or her parents would not approve of smoking. As can be seen in Fig. Attitude was found to predict conservation behaviour. the authors used farmers’ beliefs to measure their attitudes towards conservation behaviour. The prediction of behaviour from attitudes based on the Theory of Reasoned Action can be illustrated with an example from an agricultural industry. 4. and the child felt obliged to obey his or her parents. operate indirectly through attitudes. if I believed that smoking leads to lung disease and I thought that lung disease was a particularly bad outcome. evaluations and motivations. in turn. including personality. For example. By using many such belief statements. determined by a combination of beliefs about the outcomes that are likely to occur following a particular behaviour and an evaluation of those outcomes. demographic variables. These other factors will be considered in the next section. attitude questions were directed towards conservation behaviour. Both negative and positive statements towards conservation activity were used. past experiences.1. As was discussed earlier. 1953). The antecedents of beliefs. they also asked questions about farmers’ beliefs with respect to economic factors in soil conservation. then the child would feel a strong subjective normative pressure against smoking. For example. the authors were relying on consistency theory to justify the measurement of an underlying attitude towards soil conservation with belief statements. It was also found that those farmers with higher incomes tended to have poorer attitudes towards conservation behaviour. Because Lynne and Rola were interested in the relevance of economic factors in determining farmers’ conservation practices. then I would have a negative attitude towards cigarette smoking. This is a major departure from the earlier approaches (for example the Yale studies by Hovland et al. Farmers were asked to respond to questions about their beliefs regarding soil conservation. In this example. consistent with Fishbein and Ajzen’s model (Ajzen and Fishbein. Lynne and Rola (1988) carried out a study to investigate the relationship between farmers’ attitudes towards soil conservation and their soil conservation behaviours. For example. then it is possible to infer that person’s underlying attitude. Similarly.
This includes studies on voting behaviour (Echabe et al. the Theory of Reasoned Action and Ajzen’s (1985) development of this. One way in which this can occur arises when the person feels that it is not possible to engage in the relevant behaviour. 1988)..2). gender Income Religion Race. 4. 2003). such as experience and opportunity.. To address this. This can arise because the beliefs associated with the relevant attitudes are unrealistic and do not accord with the actual behavioural situation. . This may occur because the person is not physically capable of performing the behaviour or because someone or something prevents the behaviour. there have been several variants proposed for the theory.. There has been substantial research to show that the Theory of Reasoned Action is an excellent predictor of behaviour (Eagly and Chaiken. However. A model of the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour (adapted from Albarracín et al. have provided a solid basis for predicting behaviour from attitudes. Results from studies in which livestock are intensively handled will be discussed later in this chapter.2.. 4. One important additional factor is habit (Bentler and Speckart. 1993). However. 1979). ethnicity Culture Information Knowledge Media Intervention Behavioural beliefs Attitude towards the behaviour Normative beliefs Subjective norm Intention Behaviour Control beliefs Perceived behavioural control Actual behavioural control Fig. may inﬂuence behaviour (Eagly and Chaiken. one of the limitations of this theory is that intentions do not always translate into behaviour. emotion Intelligence Values.92 Chapter 4 example of how Fishbein and Ajzen’s model of the attitude–behaviour relationship can be applied in a practical situation. 2005). Despite this and other evidence which shows that other factors. the Theory of Planned Behaviour. 1984) and blood donation (Bagozzi. 1993). There is ample evidence to show that what people do is partly determined by past experience. stereotypes General attitudes Experience Social Education Age. seat-belt use (Budd et al. 1980). An example of this that is relevant to livestock production arises when stockpeople at abattoirs think that they cannot engage in best practice in handling animals pre-slaughter because they believe that it is inconsistent with the demands of management that they keep up with the speed demand of the processing facility (Coleman et al. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) introduced perceived behavioural control as a further factor in predicting behaviour (Fig. Background factors Individual Personality Mood.
3 Other Dispositional Factors In Chapter 1. The idea of a personality trait is that it is a relatively enduring characteristic which exerts a general effect on that person’s behaviour and which we cannot observe directly. while an introverted person is shy.’ are not easily distinguished from attitude statements.Attitudes of Stockpeople 93 4. degree of empathy or some temperament factors.b) reported that the stockperson’s personality was related to the behaviour of the cows and milk yield of the herd. which predispose people to be good stockpeople. (2002). conﬁdent and talkative. An extraverted person is outgoing. 1995) and the behaviour of dairy stockpeople towards cows. the introvert will avoid being in the limelight. He found that high milk yield was associated with herds in which the stockpeople were introverted and conﬁdent. for example.1 Personality Underlying psychological characteristics of a person are referred to as personality traits. In a more recent study by Waiblinger et al. These underlying characteristics result in predictable kinds of behaviours. also did not correlate signiﬁcantly with milk yield. but did correlate with the attitudes of stockpeople.4. stockperson personal characteristics. personality and empathy were two characteristics that were introduced as being relevant to work performance in general. However. timid and withdrawn. but can infer from the person’s behaviour. self-conﬁdence was associated with moderate-tohigh milk yield regardless of degree of introversion. not directed towards some external person or object.2). based on the measures used by Seabrook. Thinking–feeling scores tended to be correlated positively with . 4. but they actually do differ in that they are self-directed.3. Such statements. There was a negative relationship between judgement–perception scores and negative behaviour towards cows. for example: ‘I feel uncomfortable when I see a distressed animal. Beveridge (1996) investigated the relationship between personality types as measured by the MBTI (Myers and Myers. it may be the case that there are characteristics. These characteristics are usually assessed by affective statements by the person. the concept of introversion/extraversion is widely used in psychology. and where the cows were most willing to enter the milking facility and were less restless in the presence of the stockperson. In general. while the extravert will be just the opposite. The relevance of these for stockperson behaviour in caring for their animals has been discussed in some detail by Coleman (2004). and a brief review of the relevant data will be given here. will feel uncomfortable and will express negative feelings. For example. In livestock production. In social situations. Seabrook (1972a. The relevance of the correlation between personality scores and stockperson attitudes will be discussed in the next section of this chapter. there were no data to show that the causal link between stockperson personality and cow behaviour and productivity was related to stockperson behaviour. As brieﬂy discussed earlier (Section 1. There is little evidence relating personality directly to stockperson behaviour towards their animals.
While empathy is a dispositional characteristic. found that self-discipline was a trait that appeared to be important at all farms studied: high insecurity and low sensitivity were associated with piglet survival at independent owner-operated farms. Beveridge (1996) found that empathy towards animals was positively . In both of these studies. Seabrook (1996) reported that pig performance. which is widely adopted by psychotherapists and others. the fact that the dependent variables often are production outcomes rather than the behaviour of individual stockpeople means that. because if a characteristic is learned. which is amenable to training. and a situation-speciﬁc social learning approach. Signiﬁcant relationships have been found in the pig industry between personality types of stockpeople and productivity in farrowing units. and to be negatively correlated with clearly negative behaviours. while stockpeople that were highly reserved and bold. (1996). Empathy was deﬁned earlier in this book (Section 1. emotional stability. because many factors can intervene between stockperson characteristics and the productivity and welfare of the animals under his or her care. have been able to ﬁnd direct or indirect relationships between stockperson personality and production outcomes does suggest that personality may well be a relevant factor in livestock production. Personality is normally regarded as relatively stable and not susceptible to change. In fact.2).4. independent personality. It should be noted that the measures of personality used here were not based on established psychological tests but relied on the face validity of a series of questions. Ravel et al. using an established but currently lessfrequently used test. then it is amenable to change through training. The MBTI correlated more strongly with measures of stockperson attitude and showed no correlations with milk yield. however. rational behaviour and low aggression. measured by litter size. Duan and Hill (1996) distinguished between a trait approach. in different contexts and using different measures of personality. empathy does not refer to the bond itself. the term ‘empathy’ has been used to describe the bond that exists between humans and animals under their care (English et al. was associated with stockpeople with conﬁdent personalities. Only limited empirical data on empathy are available from livestock production. The fact that several researchers. 1992). tense and changeable were associated with higher piglet mortality at large integrated farms. In a recent review. there were no data to show that the causal link between stockperson personality and sow productivity was related to stockperson behaviour. The relevance of the correlation between personality traits and stockperson attitudes will also be discussed in the next section of this chapter. an empathic bond may exist between stockpeople and their animals.94 Chapter 4 positive and mildly negative behaviours. This is important. In the agricultural literature. the 16 PF. there is some argument about whether it is innate or learned.. which may have its origins in a number of factors of which empathy is one. suspicious. it may be difﬁcult to determine the causal sequence between stockperson personality and animal productivity. However. Empathy refers to the way in which stockpeople may feel a bond with their animals because of being able to put themselves in the animal’s position or to understand the way in which the animals are reacting.
They are considered to be characteristics of the individual and. This will be discussed in more detail below. political campaigns and pitches by salespersons and the like are all based on the view that attitudes can be changed. while attitudes are thought to develop over time and are a result of the experiences of the person. personality traits are somewhat enduring. Then again. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) identiﬁed personality as one of the key antecedents of attitude along with other individual characteristics (Fig. 1994a. under the inﬂuence of psychoactive drugs or as a result of brain surgery. are susceptible to change. conversely. 1989b. Coleman et al. while they may have behavioural implications. These factors may weakly correlate with stockperson behaviour. (1989b) used an attitude questionnaire to obtain information on the behavioural beliefs of stockpeople about interacting with pigs.1). in contrast. Coleman (2004) reported that empathy was associated with positive behaviour towards pigs and a high level of intention to remain working in the pig industry. 4. but not directly with stockperson behaviour toward cows. but that relate to the individual. Attitudes. In fact.Attitudes of Stockpeople 95 associated with positive attitudes towards interacting with cows and positive beliefs about cows. attitudes are evaluative. 1998). do not have a prescriptive element. etc. are speciﬁcally deﬁned in terms of external objects or events.3. liked/ disliked. (1998) found that empathy toward animals was associated with positive beliefs about pigs and about handling pigs.4 Attitudes and Personality It may seem that attitudes and personality traits refer to the same thing. they refer to things in terms of good/bad. perhaps. Fourthly. Based on Fishbein and Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action. they do not usually respond to efforts to change them except. personality traits are descriptive: they describe characteristics of the person. Hemsworth et al. The ﬁrst half contained a series of belief statements about characteristics of pigs and the second half contained .2). personality traits differ from attitudes in several ways. personality traits produce thoughts and behaviours that are not directed towards some external object. 4.. Indeed. Coleman et al. These three studies suggest that empathy may be a factor underlying the development of positive attitudes towards farm animals. that is. although there is some argument about the extent to which they are innate. as previously mentioned.5 Stockperson Attitudes and Behaviour in Livestock Production Our early published research studying the relationship between stockperson attitudes and behaviour was conducted in the pig industry (Hemsworth et al. First.. 4. Attitudes. which. There is some empirical support for this (see Section 4. but would be expected to exert their inﬂuence by affecting attitudes. Secondly. The attitude questionnaire was in two parts. Thirdly. because personality traits are enduring. the whole advertising industry. they remain fairly stable from early childhood to adulthood. As already discussed.
Two additional attitude questions were included: ‘How do you feel about frequent patting and stroking of pigs?’ and ‘What do you think other farmers feel about patting or stroking of pigs?’. For example. The response categories ranged from ‘A lot’ (1) to ‘Very little’ (7). The nature of the behaviour of these stockpeople towards pigs during routine mating activities. Data on stockperson behaviour were collected and collated on the basis of the number of positive and negative behaviours used by the stockperson per pig handled so that absolute numbers of both positive and negative behaviours used per pig handled and the percentage of negative behaviours (i. so that a high score indicated a negative attitude. Several variants of each type of question were asked. highly signiﬁcant correlations were found between stockperson attitudes and stockperson behaviour. was recorded in this study. Negative or aversive tactile behaviours by stockpeople that were recorded included mild.e..2. This part of the questionnaire comprised 26 questions. The rationale for the development of the questionnaire was that the inclusion of general attitudes towards pigs would allow for the possibility that general attitudes might be related to aspects of the stockperson in areas other than behaviour towards pigs. The ‘attitudes towards interacting with pigs’ questionnaire is a questionnaire to assess interrelated behavioural beliefs in a way similar to that used by Lynne and Rola (1988). Attitudes towards interacting with pigs. strokes and the hand of the stockperson resting on the back of the animal. conducting oestrus detection and assisting pigs to copulate. Questions required stockpeople to answer on a 5-point scale (1 = Disagree strongly to 5 = Agree strongly) and the questionnaire included items such as ‘Pigs are noisy animals’ and ‘Pigs are stubborn animals’. a . The relationship between general attitudes towards pigs and other variables will be discussed later in the book. each variant representing a different target animal. while the positive behaviours included pats.6. ‘Older sows with piglets’ and ‘Older sows after weaning’. ‘Older sows in oestrus’. moderate and forceful hits. ‘First litter sows after weaning’. These questions were answered on 7-point scales ranging from ‘Good’ (1) to ‘Bad’ (7) and ‘Wise’ (1) to ‘Foolish’ (7). ‘First litter sows with piglets’. High scores were therefore associated with negative attitudes. Consistent responses to these behavioural belief questions reﬂect the stockperson’s underlying attitude towards the particular kinds of interactions with pigs. Statements about pigs. This part of the questionnaire consisted of 46 questions assessing the behavioural beliefs of stockpeople. Questions were answered on a 7-point scale and included items such as ‘How much physical effort do you need to use when moving gilts in oestrus?’. All scores were recorded. 1989b). the ratio of negative behaviours to the total number of physical behaviours (sum of positive and negative)) used by each stockperson could be studied. as described in Section 4. The target animals included ‘Gilts in oestrus’. ‘Non-oestrous gilts’. slaps and kicks.96 Chapter 4 belief statements about interacting with pigs. In this study (Hemsworth et al. ‘First litter sows in oestrus’. Attitudes towards interacting with pigs were assessed because these were most likely to predict stockperson behaviour towards pigs under Fishbein and Ajzen’s model. The content of the questionnaires was as follows: 1. such as moving pigs for mating. 2.
particularly the petting–behaviour correlation. . positive attitudes towards petting and the effort required to handle cows showed moderate-to-large negative correlations with the percentage of negative behaviours used by stockpeople. As shown in Table 4. Positive attitudes to the use of petting and the use of verbal and physical effort to handle animals were negatively correlated with the use of negative tactile behaviours such as slaps. similar attitude–behaviour relationships appear to exist in the dairy industry. Attitudes assessed on the basis of behavioural beliefs. Variable used to measure negative stockperson behaviour was the percentage of negative tactile behaviours used by the stockperson. 1995).Attitudes of Stockpeople 97 positive attitude towards petting pigs by the stockperson. Correlation between positive behavioural beliefs and negative stockperson behaviour Study Hemsworth et al. reﬂected in positive beliefs about the frequency of patting. observations on stockpeople indicate that the attitudes of stockpeople towards interacting with animals are also predictive of the behaviour of the stockpeople towards their animals. Stockperson attitude–stockperson behaviour correlations in the pig industry. poor attitudes by stockpeople were associated with a high percentage of negative behaviours. Surprisingly.2). In other words.. These results are supported. In contrast. stockpeople with a positive attitude in respect to these items generally displayed a lower percentage of negative behaviour when interacting with pigs.61** −0. in which stockpeople were later trained to improve their attitudes and behaviour towards pigs. In a study of human–stockperson interactions at 29 commercial dairy farms in Australia (Hemsworth et al. showed a large negative correlation with the percentage of negative behaviours used by stockpeople (Table 4. in a reanalysis of data (Table 4. a positive attitude to the use of verbal and physical effort (i. stockpeople were likely to use fewer negative behaviours when handling their animals if they believed that: (i) petting should be frequently used. beliefs that considerable verbal and physical effort are not generally required to handle pigs) was also associated with a large negative correlation with the percentage of negative behaviours.47* −0. Beliefs about petting animals (patting and talking to animals) and the amount of physical and verbal effort required to move animals were related to the use of negative behaviours by the stockperson (Table 4. (1989b) Data reanalysed from Hemsworth et al.55** Effort and behavioura −0. These correlations therefore indicate that stockpeople with a good attitude towards handling pigs exhibited fewer negative behaviours towards pigs. Therefore. as in the pig industry. Similarly. (1994a). and (ii) verbal and physical effort should be infrequently used when interacting with animals. pushes and hits.1.01) indicate associations between the two variables. (1994a) aSigniﬁcant Petting and behavioura −0.2.12 correlations (* = P < 0.05 and ** = P < 0.1) from the study by Hemsworth et al. Seabrook Table 4. 2000). stroking and talking to the animals while working with them.. Another study on 31 dairy farms in Australia indicated very similar attitude– behaviour relationships (Breuer et al.1).e.
Production data (daily weight gain.36* −0. 2002. (2002) investigated the relationships among attitudes and personal characteristics of stockpeople.47** −0. (2000a) studied the behaviour of stockpeople towards veal calves during one morning feed at 50 farms and then asked them to ﬁll in questionnaires designed to measure their attitude towards calves. Also moderate use of the hand. feed. (1995) Data reanalysed from Breuer et al. Stockpeople scoring high on agreeableness used more positive behaviours and fewer neutral ones when handling cows. 254) also has provided some illuminating reports of unsolicited stockperson attitude statements that appear to be directed towards behaviour. 2000). (2000) aSigniﬁcant Petting and behavioura −0. and to obtain information about their background. Stockperson attitude–stockperson behaviour correlations in the dairy industry. moderately loud vocalizations and gently using a stick). move pigs. moderately loud vocalizations and gentle use of a stick correlated positively with cows stepping and kicking during milking and negatively with milk yield.98 Chapter 4 Table 4. p. for example. but correlated strongly with behavioural attitudes.. General attitudes showed limited correlations with stockperson behaviour. The frequency of gentle contacts was positively correlated with the self-reported behaviour of stockpeople towards their calves and their beliefs about the sensitivity of calves. (1994.01) indicate associations between the two variables. Stockperson behaviours were classiﬁed as positive and negative as well as neutral (moderate use of the hand..55** Effort and behavioura −0. More recent research on dairy cattle has shown similar results. It was found that behavioural attitudes correlated signiﬁcantly with stockperson behaviour and cow milk yield.05 and ** = P < 0. Correlation between positive behavioural beliefs and negative stockperson behaviour Study Hemsworth et al. feed conversion and mortality rates) were obtained from the local veal company. move pigs. 1995. Waiblinger et al. Variable used to measure negative stockperson behaviour was the percentage of negative tactile interactions used by the stockperson. Such statements are consistent with stockpeople behaving in a way determined by their attitudes. it’s so easy to lash out with the foot. A negative correlation between the absolute number and percentage of positive behaviours and the avoidance of humans by cows was found. Breuer et al. Lensink et al. using questionnaires similar to those previously used by us (Hemsworth et al. Positive behaviour was associated with better productivity. Attitudes assessed on the basis of behavioural beliefs. 2000. . they are so stubborn’. had more positive beliefs about the importance of contacts with calves and provided a more positive description of their own behaviour. the behaviour of cows during milking towards humans and average milk yield. ‘Every day it is the same old routine: feed.28 correlations (* = P < 0. Females showed more positive behaviour towards the calves. Thirty small dairy farms in Austria where cows were loose housed indoors were studied.2. When they won’t go where you want them to. their behaviours to cows.
so the interpretation of the results is equivocal. they did not demonstrate that these stockperson attitudes were related to cattle behaviour. 2003) found that stockpeople who felt under pressure to keep up with the killing chain and who believed that it is important to move the pigs as quickly as possible tended to be less likely to . to the sensitivity of hens and to working with laying hens were associated with the stockperson making more noise and moving faster in the housing facility.. Edwards (2009) conducted ﬁeld studies on Australian and US commercial egg farms in which hens were housed in cages. however.Attitudes of Stockpeople 99 In beef cattle. etc. No signiﬁcant correlations were found between stockperson beliefs about positive behaviours towards cattle and ﬂight distance. as they point out. because the behaviour of the bulls was assessed in a novel situation (being loaded on to a truck) by a stranger (the truck driver). Unfortunately. although small. These observations in two countries indicate relationships between stockperson attitudes and behaviour in commercial egg farms. and (ii) behavioural beliefs. There is some limited evidence of attitude–behaviour relationships in stockpeople handling livestock before slaughter at abattoirs. Windschnurer et al. a negative attitude to working with hens was associated with the stockperson spending less time closely inspecting the birds. The authors argued that this may be important in motivating beef cattle stockpeople to engage in training to improve the human–animal relationship. More recently. were in the expected direction. there were no data on the handling that the bulls had experienced under the stockperson. Research on stockpeople handling pigs before slaughter (Coleman et al. (2007) found that stockpeople were concerned about animal behaviour-related handling problems. The attitude questionnaire comprised two parts: (i) affective (emotional) attitudes. stroking bulls. Negative attitudes to laying hens in general. While a general negative attitude to hens was also associated with the stockperson spending more time in the housing facility. several of these correlations. Mounier et al. This result is difﬁcult to interpret. towards the animals’ behaviour during handling and towards ease of handling. which consisted of questions assessing the degree of comfort that stockpeople felt in different situations when working with bulls. They also found that stockpeople generally showed positive attitudes towards the animals. Signiﬁcant negative correlations. However. but. The authors concluded that close contacts with bulls by farmers should be limited to facilitate later animal handling. Boivin et al. (2009a) conducted a small study of stockperson attitudes and behaviour towards bulls at ten farms. (2006) found that positive beliefs by stockpeople about bulls were negatively related to the ease of loading and unloading them by a truck driver. Stockpeople emphasized human contact as the most important factor in determining the ease of handling cattle. Most other research has been carried out on the relationship between the attitudes of an animal’s handler. In a study of bulls at the time they were loaded on to trucks for transport to slaughter. which consisted of questions assessing whether stockpeople considered gentle contacts (talking to bulls. the behaviour of the handler and the animal’s behaviour in response to that handler. based on farm averages. were found between affective attitudes by stockpeople.) to be important during their daily work. positive stockperson interactions with cattle and the ﬂight distance of cattle to humans.
use the electric goad when it was turned off.04 0.09 −0. than did those who believed it is not important to move the pigs quickly (Table 4.15 −0. These observed relationships between stockperson attitudes and behaviour at cattle. unpub.05 and ** = P < 0.35 −0. (iv) external factors such as previous handling predominantly affect animal behaviour.100 Chapter 4 Table 4.48* 0. Coleman and P Hemsworth.H. hitting and use of the electric goad.31 0. (ii) they are under time pressure when moving their animals. the effect of poor facilities and the importance of arousing livestock were all associated with frequent use of forceful handling behaviours. pig and sheep abattoirs are consistent with previous research on pigs and cattle in other handling situations. that is. Correlations between stockperson attitudes and stockperson behaviour to pigs in an abattoir (from Coleman et al.3.36 0.. For example. that is. The attitude scales are recorded so that a high score reﬂects disagreement with the question. as a deliberate aversive stimulus to the pigs. such as shouting. 2009) found that the stockperson beliefs about the pressures imposed by perceived lack of control over their actions. 2003).06 −0.03 0.4) when that believe that: (i) they don’t have control over how they handle their animals. Furthermore. and (v) animals need to be aroused and kept moving.01) indicate associations between the two variables. . stockpeople tended to use more negative behaviours in handling sheep and cattle before slaughter (Table 4. as a relatively benign aid to move animals. the belief that the way in which pigs are handled when waiting to be slaughtered does not affect their behaviour was associated with high use of the electric goad when it was turned on.18 correlations (* = P < 0. n = 23 stockpeople. Frequency of electric goad use when Questionnaire item Behavioural beliefs It is important to move the pigs into the carbon dioxide stunner as quickly as possible I move the pigs no more or less quickly than my co-workers How the pigs are handled by me when waiting to be slaughtered does not affect their behaviour Using the electric goad is the most effective tool to get the pigs to do what is needed While pigs are in the carbon dioxide stunner. a positive attitude. perceived time constraints. (iii) ﬂooring does not affect animal behaviour.47* −0.J.42* −0. that is. Research on stockpeople handling beef cattle and sheep before slaughter (G.3). lished data. I decide how tightly to pack the pigs in the twin race Normative beliefs Many employees think that it is important to move the pigs into the carbon dioxide stunner as quickly as possible aSigniﬁcant Turned offa Turned ona 0.
35** 0. and (v) animals need to be aroused and kept moving. (iv) external factors such as previous handling predominantly affect animal behaviour.05 −0.28** −0.Attitudes of Stockpeople Table 4.04 0. High scores indicate agreement with the statements.18* 0. 4. Key beliefs appear to be those relating to petting and use .10 −0.13 0.39** −0. there is a general consistency in ﬁndings to indicate that the attitude of stockpeople to handling animals is related to the behaviour of the stockpeople towards their animals.19* 0. Stockperson behavioura Shouting Attitude factorb Lack of control Time constraint Flooring affects behaviour External factors affect behaviour Arousing animals aSigniﬁcant bAttitude 101 Hitting Use of electric goad 0. differences in farming methods (particularly between Europe and Australia) and some variations in methodology.19* −0.29** 0. (iii) ﬂooring does not affect animal behaviour. Fig. (ii) they are under time pressure when moving their animals.02 0.05 0.05 and ** = P < 0. Despite the variability in species studied. factors: stockpeople that believed that: (i) they don’t have control over how they handle their animals.21* correlations (* = P < 0.06 0.01) indicate associations between the two variables.4.3. Positive attitudes to handling pigs are associated with positive contacts with pigs. Stockperson attitude–stockperson behaviour correlations in sheep and cattle abattoirs (sample size varies from 41–87 stockpeople).
it is likely that factors other than attitudes will contribute to the prediction of behaviour. Therefore. we translate our plans into actions’.102 Chapter 4 of verbal and physical effort. This is the subject of the next chapter. such as slaps. 4. There is good evidence in the pig and dairy industries that stockperson attitudes do predict stockperson behaviour towards farm animals. Positive attitudes to the use of petting and the use of verbal and physical effort to handle animals are negatively correlated with the use of negative tactile behaviours. The Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein.3). is the way in which these attitudes and behaviour develop. and their consequences for the productivity and welfare of farm animals. 1980) holds that ‘as a general rule. And. . pushes and hits. we intend to behave in favourable ways with respect to things and people we like and to display unfavourable behaviours towards things and people we dislike. productivity and welfare of farm animals. however. it is important to identify the origins of the behaviour of stockpeople. A key issue. and these factors will be discussed further in Chapter 6. these observations indicate that the attitude of the stockperson towards farm animals may be an inﬂuential determinant of how the stockperson behaves towards farm animals (Fig. Of course. with a positive attitude to these behaviours associated with less negative tactile behaviour directed towards farm animals. 4.6 Conclusion As there is compelling evidence to suggest that the behaviour of stockpeople may inﬂuence the behaviour. barring unforeseen events.
Human–Livestock Interactions. Hemsworth and G. pigs and poultry. many behaviours are learned. that have shown that human–animal interactions in livestock production may have marked consequences for farm animals. the concepts of learning © CAB International 2011.H. Coleman) 103 . particularly in terms of their behaviour. the nature of attitudes and their relationship to behaviour were discussed both from a theoretical perspective and in terms of some of the available data from the livestock industries. This is the subject of this chapter. growth and reproductive performance of farm animals may be reduced in situations where fear of humans is high and a chronic stress response is implicated in the adverse effects of fear for humans on farm animal productivity. in Chapter 4. The implications of human–animal interactions on the welfare and productivity of livestock highlight the need to study the relationships between stockperson behaviour and animal behaviour. Therefore. physiology and productivity. The basic principles of learning apply equally well to animal learning as to human learning. Because of the particular importance of learning in understanding how the attitudes and behaviour of stockpeople affect farm animals and how the behavioural responses of farm animals to humans develop. Because attitudes are the main dispositional factor affecting volitional human behaviour. mainly with dairy cattle. for example avoidance of strange or novel stimuli or certain ﬁxed mating patterns in response to a hormonal state during oestrus.1 Introduction So far in this book we have considered many handling and ﬁeld studies. A key issue is how these stockperson attitudes and behaviours affect the behaviour of farm animals.J. For example as discussed in Chapter 3. While animals have some instinctive behaviours. there are likely to be opportunities to manipulate human–animal interactions in order to inﬂuence farm animal welfare and productivity by improving the attitudes and behaviour of stockpeople towards farm animals. Farm animals that have had a history of aversive handling learn to avoid stockpeople. Second Edition (P.5 Stockperson Behaviour and Animal Behaviour 5.
5. There are two basic kinds of reinforcers. but courtship and copulation are positively reinforcing if she is in oestrus.104 Chapter 5 and reinforcement need to be understood. Often it is fairly easy to determine. as do the ways in which conditioning. For example.2 Kinds of Learning Learning is generally deﬁned as a relatively enduring change in behaviour that occurs as a result of experience. Experience in the particular behaviour or in a closely related behaviour is central to learning. however. 5. if the person has just eaten a large meal. So removal of an electric shock or the cessation of punishment are examples of negative reinforcers. What this means is that the strength of a reinforcer often cannot be determined without considering the motivational state of the person or animal. such as palatable food. the stimulus. Not all relatively enduring changes are examples of learning because ageing or disease may also produce such changes. under conditions where this would not have occurred previously. this may not be the case. comes to produce a particular behaviour. attempts by a boar to mate with a gilt or sow are quite aversive for the female if she is not in oestrus. This process is called conditioning and has two basic forms: classical and instrumental.1 Reinforcement and motivation Reinforcement is difﬁcult to deﬁne and there have been many arguments in the literature about how to arrive at a non-circular deﬁnition.2. which appear to be universally attractive to a person or another animal. It is the release from the aversive stimulus that has the reinforcing effect. The establishment of this connection between stimulus and response in the process of conditioning requires the presence of a reinforcer. those things. would be expected to be reinforcers. Thus food to a hungry individual or water to a thirsty individual would be positively reinforcing. Attitudes fall into this latter category. even then. sensitization and socialization or imprinting. positive and negative. in its various forms. the most fundamental type of learning involves the process where an event. Reinforcement is generally deﬁned as anything that follows a response and that increases the likelihood of the response occurring when the same stimulus is presented again. Behaviour refers to observable actions on the part of individuals and we can measure underlying cognitive events by their expression in behaviour. It is often not possible to determine whether such apparently obvious reinforcers really are reinforcing without observing the development of stimulus–response sequences. . operates. Negative reinforcers are those that arise when some aversive stimulus is removed. whether or not something will act as a reinforcer. a priori. For example. such as habituation. the response. A positive reinforcer is something that is pleasurable or rewarding. While there are other forms of learning recognized.
the study of motivation is concerned with identifying the causal factors that are responsible for an animal’s behaviour. Secondly. that is. Subsequently.2. p. Indeed. there is a complex interaction between innate characteristics and learned characteristics in determining motivations. In contrast. Pavlov had observed that his dog began to salivate before actually being given food. it will continue with other behaviours until it pecks the button . such as food and water. 2) states that ‘the fact that drive cannot be observed directly and is dependent upon such things as hormone level and learning. B. cognitive consistency may be learned rather than innate and is relatively controversial. which. drinking.1). 5. First. Toates (1980. is perhaps no argument against it having a provisional usefulness’. such as feeding. if an animal is hungry. releasing the food pellet (Fig. Skinner (1969) discovered instrumental conditioning and it is best illustrated by describing his experimental procedure. food is unconditioned. a motivational state associated with. by affecting arousal in the individual. copulating and ﬂeeing.Stockperson Behaviour and Animal Behaviour 105 As discussed in Chapter 3 (Section 3. The bird has not learned that pressing the button will release the food. so it will explore the box. the dog has already established the reinforcing properties of food. he found that ringing the bell alone was sufﬁcient to induce salivation. Pavlov paired an unconditioned stimulus (food) with a conditioned stimulus (bell) to eventually produce an unconditioned response (salivation) to the bell alone. its physiological state will generate a motivation or drive that is directed towards food.F. Thus. by chance. the conditioned stimulus (bell) has been singled out from all other possibly relevant stimuli and has been presented systematically in conjunction with the food. 1960). This process of conditioning relies on two principles. Because the pigeon has not learned that pressing the button caused the release of food. 5.2 Conditioning processes Classical conditioning is the most fundamental form of learning and was discovered in the experiments by the famous Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov last century (Pavlov. The key issue is that there are a large number of causal factors. Pressing the button will cause the release of a food pellet. experiences and learned associations. Skinner described an experiment in which a pigeon was placed in a box with a button on the wall. He reasoned that some stimulus other than actual eating must trigger the salivation. for example. It is important to realize that motivations directed towards satisfying the basic physiological needs.1). may increase or decrease the intensity of a reinforcing stimulus. To put it more formally. Instrumental (operant) conditioning differs from classical conditioning in that there is no explicit pairing of conditioned and unconditioned stimuli. form only one type of motivational state. have an innate basis and are relatively non-contentious. He then rang a bell each time he gave the dog food. it will peck the button.2).4. It has been recognized by many authors that it is generally necessary to consider explanations for observed behaviour in terms of states within the organism (motivations or drives). Thus the salivation response had become conditioned to the bell (Fig. Eventually. 5. For example.
the contingency between the button and food will become learned and the pigeon will peck the button to obtain the food. . reinforcement is given. The button will have become operantly conditioned to the food.106 Chapter 5 Unconditioned stimulus (US) Food Unconditioned association Unconditioned response (UR) Salivation Pairing Conditioned stimulus (CS) Bell Conditioned association Fig. 5. Classical conditioning. Eventually the response R2 is learned as the correct response. This form of conditioning differs from classical conditioning in that the individual must discover the stimulus– response contingency. again.2. When the correct response is elicited.1. R1 and R3 are behaviours other than pecking the button. initially by chance. Repeated pairing of food and the bell will eventually lead to the bell alone being able to elicit salivation. R1 Conditioned stimulus (CS) Button R2 (Peck button) Conditioned response Unconditioned stimulus (US) Food pellet Reinforcement R3 Fig. Eventually. Instrumental (operant) conditioning. 5.
In fact. that may assist the animal to respond appropriately to a source of danger. it may also act as a reinforcer. For example. Reinforcement does not need to be constant for learning to take place. if. the bell would become more strongly conditioned than it would have been in the original experiment. In this case.Stockperson Behaviour and Animal Behaviour 107 5. i. there is likely to be a number of behavioural responses available to the animal. More speciﬁcally. When a stimulus has become conditioned. the latency to and the amount of approach to a stationary experimenter in a standard test have been used to measure the level of fear of humans in pigs (see Section 3. The term ‘primary’ is used in a way similar to its use in motivation theory.4. ‘primary’ implies ‘unlearned’.2. it is called a primary reinforcer. and thus fearful animals in the presence of humans will. It is then referred to as a secondary reinforcer because it is not itself a ‘natural’ reinforcer. The notion of pre-existing is difﬁcult to deﬁne. Many animal behaviours are acquired through learning.e. pairing of the bell with. Level of fear in animals can be inferred from behavioural observations. Furthermore.3). we have proposed that the amount of avoidance of the experimenter or. have increased secretions of the catecholamine hormones adrenaline and noradrenaline and of the corticosteroid hormones cortisol and corticosterone (see Section 3. Thus. the amount of approach to the experimenter are useful measures of the animal’s fear of humans. fear-provoking stimuli will also elicit responses of the autonomic nervous system and the neuroendocrine system. However. most secondary reinforcers do not retain their reinforcing properties indeﬁnitely unless they are regularly paired with the original unconditioned stimulus. conversely. for example. because fear responses function to protect the animal from harmful stimuli. partial reinforcement schedules tend to result in learning that is resistant to later attempts to change the learned response. the food was paired with the bell only 50% of the time. for example.6). the bell has taken on the reinforcing properties of the primary reinforcer. and if the occurrence of the food with the bell was random. affected by both internal and external stimuli that elicit behavioural and physiological responses. which . food. animals learn behaviours through operant and classical conditioning.3 Primary and secondary reinforcers When an unconditioned stimulus has pre-existing reinforcing properties. but food and water are clearly primary reinforcers by this deﬁnition. In the example of classical conditioning in dogs given above.3 Relevance of Learning Theory to Fear of Humans In Chapter 3 we proposed that fear can usefully be viewed as an emotion. in studies on pigs. In fact. 5. in the original experiment. a ﬂash of light could condition the salivation response to the ﬂash of light. For example. the bell could act as a secondary reinforcer once it has become conditioned. When an animal is confronted with a fear-provoking stimulus. in the classical conditioning experiment described earlier.
Stockperson behaviour–animal behaviour correlations in the pig industry.1.6). The correlations found in two of these studies are presented in Table 5. measured in terms of percentage of the total tactile behaviours by the stockperson. kicks and pushes.40* Study Hemsworth et al. We will now review in more detail some of the industry studies that reveal these relationships between stockperson behaviour and animal behaviour.108 Chapter 5 optimize their capacity to live in their environment. This research has shown some large and consistent relationships between stockperson behaviour towards animals and the behavioural response of animals to humans across a number of livestock industries (see Section 3.1. Table 5. In these two studies. 5. which generally conﬁrms the predictions of numerous handling studies that have been conducted under experimental conditions (see Section 3. hits. positive handling is acting as a positive reinforcer. .5). (2000) aSigniﬁcant correlations (* = P < 0. we and. Consistent correlations between stockperson behaviour and the level of fear of humans by pigs have been found in the Australian pig industry. Similarly. Negative stockperson behaviour was assessed by the percentage of negative tactile interactions. while the positive tactile behaviours included pats. strokes and the hand resting on the pig’s back. (1989b) Data reanalysed from Coleman et al.05) indicate associations between the two variables. Negative stockperson behaviour and level of fear for humansa 0. In this case. and fear of humans was assessed by measuring the time that sows spent near a stationary experimenter in a standard test. For example. while fear of humans at the farm was assessed by the time sows spent near a stationary experimenter. there is substantial evidence to show that farm animals learn to avoid stockpeople from whom they have received aversive stimulation (Section 3.1. was positively correlated with the level of fear of humans by pigs: high fear levels were observed where stockpeople displayed a high percentage of negative tactile behaviours.5). avoiding the aversive handling is acting as a negative reinforcer.5). Here. farm animals show greater approach behaviour towards stockpeople from whom they have received positive interactions (Section 3. Negative tactile behaviours by stockpeople were deﬁned as mild to forceful slaps. the use of negative behaviours. As shown in Table 5. more recently. the variable used to measure negative stockperson behaviour was the percentage of negative tactile behaviours used by the stockperson in handling breeding sows.4 Stockperson Behaviour and Animal Behaviour Over the past 30 years. European and Canadian researchers have been studying stockperson behaviour–animal behaviour relationships in the livestock industries.45* 0.
Two types of farms are represented in this ﬁgure: small independent farms in which one stockperson is Small independent farms 100 Negative interactions (%) 80 60 40 20 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 Stockpeople Large integrated farms 90 80 Negative interactions (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 Stockpeople Fig. 5. The behaviour variable is the percentage of negative tactile behaviours used by stockpeople in handling breeding pigs in the mating facility.H. This clearly indicates the sensitivity of pigs to mild and moderate negative behaviours by humans. Variation in the behaviour of 35 stockpeople at small independent piggeries and 46 stockpeople at large integrated piggeries (P. slaps and pushes. prods and pushes. . 1998). hits. 5. unpublished data.3.J. something that is not intuitively obvious to most of us.3. The variation observed in the behaviour of stockpeople towards breeding pigs in the Australian pig industry is shown in Fig. but also negative behaviours used with less force. Coleman. Hemsworth and G. high levels of fear of humans were best predicted when the classiﬁcation of negative behaviours included not only forceful kicks.Stockperson Behaviour and Animal Behaviour 109 Surprisingly. such as mild and moderate slaps.
2000) in which cows grazed on pasture all year in herds of 100 to 350. 2001b. In a subsequent study.4) indicates the relevance of the Australian data to the international pig industry. For example. As can be seen from these data. hits and tail twists while moving cows in and out of the milking facility and into position for milking. Lensink et al. strokes and the hand on the cow’s ﬂanks or legs during milking. 2000. similar to those observed in the pig industry. (2002) at 30 small Austrian dairy farms in which cows were loose housed indoors in herds of 25 to 50 cows found similar correlations between stockperson behaviour and fear of humans by cows (Table 5. More recent observations by Waiblinger et al. Waiblinger et al. In the ﬁrst study.2). Hemsworth et al.. It should be appreciated that the pig industry in Australia is typical of intensive pig production systems in other countries. the frequency of both moderate and forceful negative behaviours was most correlated with fear. is very similar at both types of farms. In this study. respectively.5.. Observations in the Australian dairy industry indicate that behavioural patterns of stockpeople. A comparison of the fear levels observed in sows at Dutch farms with that of sows observed at Australian farms (Fig. These associations indicate that fear of humans was high at farms in which stockpeople frequently displayed negative tactile behaviours. signiﬁcant correlations were found between the use of negative tactile behaviours used by stockpeople to move cows for milking and the level of fear of humans by cows (Table 5. as assessed by the percentage of negative tactile behaviours used in moving breeding pigs and when conducting oestrus detection and assisted matings. of stockpeople at small independent and large integrated units consistently displayed more than 60% negative behaviours when handling breeding pigs. In particular. and large integrated units in which teams of stockpeople are responsible for mating management. As discussed in Chapter 3 (Section 3.1). 57% and 43%. (2003) found that the frequency of touching and talking to cows at 35 small Austrian dairy farms was signiﬁcantly and negatively correlated with the distance at which cows showed avoidance to an approaching experimenter.2). The important observation here is that there is substantial variation in the use of negative behaviours used by stockpeople at both types of farms. The main negative behaviours were pushes. while in the second study. the percentage of forceful negative behaviours was most correlated with fear.110 Chapter 5 predominantly responsible for mating management. 5. while the main positive behaviours were pats.c) found that commercial calves that were regularly stroked on their necks and shoulders and allowed to suck the stockperson’s ﬁngers spent more time interacting with a stationary unfamiliar experimenter in their home pens and showed less withdrawal . (2000b. slaps. also regulate the fear responses of commercial cows to humans. In two studies involving 31 and 66 farms (Breuer et al. there is a large number of stockpeople at both types of farms that display a high percentage of negative tactile behaviours. negative stockperson behaviour included forceful hits as well as shouting. the variation in stockperson behaviour. This high percentage of stockpeople that display predominantly negative behaviours towards pigs is of serious concern for the industry and its consequences will be considered in detail for all animal industries later in this chapter and in Chapter 6.
As discussed earlier (Sections 3. 5. The variation observed in the behaviour of stockpeople towards dairy cows in the Australian dairy industry is shown in Fig. 1989b). this variation raises concern for cow productivity and welfare.7). 1981b.4. Variation in fear of humans. As was observed in the pig industry. 5. from an approaching unfamiliar and familiar experimenter in front of their pens than calves that received minimal contact with the experimenter around feeding time. and because of the relationships between stockperson behaviour.5.Stockperson Behaviour and Animal Behaviour 160 140 120 Time to interact (s) 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 160 140 120 Time to interact (s) 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Commercial farms 9 10 11 12 12 Dutch farms 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 Australian farms 111 Fig..6 and 3. . as assessed by the approach behaviour of sows to a stationary experimenter at 19 Australian and 12 Dutch piggeries (data reanalysed from Hemsworth et al. there is substantial variation in the behaviour of stockpeople towards cows. fear and the associated stress have important implications for both animal productivity and welfare. animal fear and animal productivity.
(2000)e Waiblinger et al.5. stockperson behaviour was assessed in studies: d. Hemsworth and G.b. Together with handling studies.H.05 and ** = P < 0.hby speed of movement.J. (2002)f Hemsworth et al. slaps and kicks by the stockperson. The behaviour variable is the percentage of negative tactile behaviours used by stockpeople when moving dairy cows for milking. g. while the rewarding . fby the distance at which cows showed avoidance to an approaching experimenter. Stockperson behaviour–animal behaviour correlations in the dairy and poultry industries.47** 0. unpublished data. eby the percentage of cows that approached close to a stationary experimenter. eby the frequency of negative tactile behaviours such as hits and slaps. (1996a)g Cransberg et al.33** 0.59** Industry Dairy Study Breuer et al.43* 0.32 0.112 Chapter 5 Table 5.hby the number of chickens that remained close to an experimenter moving in standard manner among the chickens. 100 Negative interactions (%) 80 60 40 20 0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 Stockpeople Fig. (2000)d Hemsworth et al. Coleman. 2000). cFear of humans at the farm was assessed in study: dby the time cows spent near a stationary experimenter. and iby the noise made by the stockperson. (2000)h Edwards (2009)i Meat chicken Egg (hens) aSigniﬁcant bNegative correlations (* = P < 0. g.2. 5.01) indicate associations between the two variables. and iby the proportion of hens that remained close to an approaching experimenter. Variation in the behaviour of 63 stockpeople at dairy farms (P. these studies with commercial dairy cows and pigs indicate that learned approach–avoidance responses develop as a consequence of associations between the stockperson and the aversive and rewarding elements of the handling bouts. The main aversive properties of stockpeople include hits.30 0.fby the percentage of negative tactile behaviours such as hits and slaps. Negative stockperson behaviour and level of fear for humansa.c 0.
41. Furthermore. P < 0. There is some evidence that waving and creating noise may affect fear responses in commercial chickens.. Recently. . the speed of movement of the stockperson while routinely inspecting chickens and their facilities was positively correlated with the level of fear for humans by chickens. 2000). for dairy cows. A composite score representing the proportion of birds that had their heads out of the cages when the experimenter was in close proximity was calculated for each farm. These observations indicate that speed of movement by the stockperson is one of the visual behaviours of stockpeople inﬂuencing fear of humans at commercial meat chicken farms. there was a signiﬁcant correlation found between the frequency with which stockpeople made noise during routine inspection and maintenance in the accommodation facility and level of fear for humans by laying hens. (1996a) found that the frequency of waving by the stockperson was negatively correlated with the fear (correlation coefﬁcient of −0. These associations indicate that fear of humans was high at farms in which stockpeople frequently made noise and infrequently approached closely and had tactile contact with birds and cages. 1996a. (2000) found that the combined frequency of waving and tapping on objects by the stockperson when moving through the facility was positively associated with fear of humans (correlation coefﬁcient of 0. sudden and unexpected exposure to the stockperson and noise made by the stockperson may be fear provoking for poultry.48. Noise made by stockpeople included loud vocalizations.Stockperson Behaviour and Animal Behaviour 113 properties include pats.53. While Cransberg et al. It is also of interest that the frequency of tactile contact with cages or hens by stockpeople was signiﬁcantly and negatively correlated with the fear of humans for birds based on their avoidance behaviour to the approaching experimenter (correlation coefﬁcient of 0. P < 0. indeed. Cransberg et al. As shown in Table 5. Fear at the farms was assessed by the avoidance behaviour of the birds to an experimenter who closely approached and withdrew twice from a sample of cages in the facility. Fear of humans was assessed by measuring the avoidance response of birds to an approaching experimenter.41.5.2).2.05). respectively. It is the use of these negative and positive behaviours that appear to determine the commercial animal’s fear of humans. P < 0. rapid speed of movement by the stockperson. Handling studies also indicate that poultry appear to be particularly sensitive to close and regular visual contact with humans and. Hemsworth et al. 2009). Observations have also been conducted in two studies on stockperson and bird behaviour at 22 and 24 Australian commercial meat chicken farms (Hemsworth et al. observations have been conducted on stockperson and bird behaviour at 29 Australian and US commercial egg farms in which hens were housed in cages (Edwards. strokes and the hand of the stockperson touching the animal. P < 0.05).. positive visual contact may be more effective in reducing levels of fear of humans than tactile contact (Section 3. In addition.05).2.01) but the frequency of tapping on objects by the stockperson was positively associated with fear of humans (correlation coefﬁcient of 0. It was found that the behaviour of the stockperson in the accommodation facility was moderately associated with levels of fear of humans by chickens. shouting and talking appear to be negative and positive. cleaning with an air hose or leaf blower and banging equipment during cleaning and maintenance. As shown in Table 5.
5. while intensity of dog use and frequency of auditory and tactile behaviours by stockpeople were correlated with plasma cortisol concentrations in sheep post-slaughter (Hemsworth et al. pig and poultry industries indicate that an important determinant of the fear response of farm animals to humans is the behaviour of the stockperson towards the animals. it was found that the frequency of goad use and auditory behaviours by stockpeople prior to slaughter were correlated with plasma cortisol concentrations in cattle post-slaughter.5 Farm Animals’ Discrimination Between Humans We have proposed in this book that the history of interactions between the stockperson and the animal determine the subsequent stimulus properties of the . Whistling and slow. Overall then. 5. such as whistles. and increased goad use were all associated with increased cortisol concentrations.. 2008).6. increased dog use. In a recent study examining handling–animal stress relationships at cattle and sheep abattoirs.6). deliberate and predictable movements by stockpeople are associated with reduced stress responses in sheep. such as touches and pushes.6. reduced tactile behaviours. 5. These observations in the dairy. The large variation in the behaviour of stockpeople towards humans raises some serious concerns for the welfare and productivity of farm animals in situations where the behaviour of the stockperson is predominantly negative. reduced auditory behaviours.114 Chapter 5 Fig. These limited data indicate that brief handling post-farm gate may affect stress responses in livestock (Fig. and this aspect is brieﬂy considered later in this chapter in Section 5.
. showed similar behavioural responses to familiar and unfamiliar handlers (Hemsworth et al. such as sex. farm animals may learn to discriminate between the . even though both handlers wore similar clothing. height. Evidence from a number of handling studies supports this view that the animal’s response to a single human might extend to include all humans through this process of stimulus generalization. several studies with rodents indicate that animals can discriminate between the handler with whom the animals have had substantial contact. (1995) found that young pigs showed greater approach to the familiar handler than to an unfamiliar handler. 1993) that in situations in which there is intense handling predominantly of a positive nature by a stockperson. We have previously suggested (Hemsworth et al. and a stranger (see review by Dewsbury... For example. 1992). and Bouissou and Vandenheede (1995) reported that the avoidance responses of sheep towards a human and a human-like model were similar but greater than the response to a novel cylindrical model bearing little resemblance to a human. For example. or by two handlers who differed markedly in the nature of their behaviour towards pigs. Following an extensive period of intense human contact (10 min/day for 3 weeks). 1994b). 1988).. the animal’s perceptions of humans. The characteristics of these stimulus properties include the extent to which the animal has habituated to the presence of the stockperson and the extent to which the stockperson has been associated with rewarding or aversive events. the behavioural response of commercial livestock to one handler may extend to other humans. Studies conducted on commercial pigs and poultry also indicate that farm animals in commercial conditions may not discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar humans. in commercial situations. in situations in which the physical characteristics of the handlers differ markedly. The approach behaviour of adult pigs to a familiar handler and an unfamiliar human were similar in a standard approach test conducted at a one-person piggery (Hemsworth et al. Tanida et al. through the process of stimulus generalization. animals may learn to discriminate between this handler and other handlers to which the animals may be subsequently exposed. Barnett et al. that is. the behavioural response of a farm animal to an individual human will extend to all humans (Hemsworth et al. Jones (1994) found that young chickens brieﬂy handled twice daily from 1 day of age in a positive manner showed similar behavioural responses to familiar and unfamiliar handlers wearing either similar or different clothing when tested at 10 or 11 days of age.Stockperson Behaviour and Animal Behaviour 115 human for the animal. These results suggest that. However. we have previously suggested that. clothing and wearing spectacles. presumably of a positive nature. Stimulus generalization can be deﬁned as a tendency for stimuli similar to the original stimulus in a learning situation to produce the response originally acquired (Reber. were not different. pigs that previously were brieﬂy handled ﬁve times per week for 6 weeks either by a handler in a predominantly negative manner. Furthermore. 1981b). Furthermore. it is possible that there are handling situations in which commercial livestock may not exhibit stimulus generalization. (1993) found that the avoidance responses of commercial laying hens to humans varying in a number of attributes. Similarly. 1993).
5. handlers wore different coloured clothing.116 Chapter 5 handlers.1 Fear and productivity As considered in Chapter 3 (Section 3. Although there is evidence that farm animals are capable of discriminating between stockpeople. there is evidence from both handling experiments and observations in the animal industries that the combination of high fear levels and regular human contact may reduce the productivity of dairy cows. 40% of the calves actually approached and interacted with the negative handler. 1996). with calves showing increasing avoidance of all handlers. de Passille et al. Nevertheless. however. Initially there was a generalization of the aversive handling.6 Implications of High Fear of Humans for Farm Animals Some of the implications of high fear of humans for farm animals have been considered in Chapter 3 and will be considered further in Chapter 6. fear responses to humans in general are likely to increase in response to the most aversive handler (Hemsworth et al. 1994b. the distinctive features of the stockpeople and the intensity and duration of interactions before being able to predict that farm animals would discriminate between stockpeople. such as colour of clothing or location of handling.6. pigs and poultry. dairy cattle show that in fearful animals. energy . The mechanisms responsible are unclear in some species. and in particular between the ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ handlers. the environment in which handling occurs.. they may not do so under normal commercial circumstances. These data on calves indicate that discrimination between people by farm animals will be easier if the animals have some distinct cues on which they can discriminate.6) and in this chapter (Section 5. For example. but studies on pigs and. calves discriminated between handlers. It is of interest that discrimination was greatest when tested in the area in which handling had previously occurred rather than in a novel location. even when farm animals learn to discriminate between humans. In fact. in one experiment when animals were tested in a location in which the handling was not performed. a chronic stress response or even a series of acute stress responses in the presence of humans may be responsible for the depressed productivity in these fearful animals. 5. it is necessary to take into account the number of stockpeople. de Passille et al. In order to increase the chances of discrimination. Certainly. it is useful at this stage to brieﬂy review the potential adverse effects of high fear levels. to a lesser extent. but with repeated treatment.. in a series of experiments. Support for this is provided by the known effects of corticosteroids on nitrogen balance.4). Such a ﬁnding has important implications in situations in which several stockpeople may interact with farm animals. (1996) found that dairy calves exhibited clear avoidance of a handler who had previously handled them in a negative manner in comparison with either an unfamiliar handler or a handler that had previously handled them in a positive manner.
While fear may lead to injuries in animals trying to avoid humans during routine inspections and handling. 5.3.3. 5. There is limited evidence in pigs and other farm animals that highly fearful animals are generally the most difﬁcult to handle.01) indicate associations between the two variables. was given based on ease of movement. Nevertheless.44* −0. chronic stress responses in livestock as a consequence of negative human contact are less likely than in intensive systems because of less contact with humans and the greater opportunity for the animals to control this contact.42** Baulks 0. acute stress responses are likely in situations in which fearful animals are in close contact with humans.. Fear is generally considered an undesirable emotional state of suffering.42* Scoreb −0. were the most difﬁcult pigs to move along an unfamiliar route. These correlations indicate that pigs which showed high levels of fear for humans. Variable recorded in ease of movement testa Variable recorded to assess fear of humans Time to approach experimenter Number of interactions with experimenter aSigniﬁcant bScore Time to move 0.34 −0. Concern for the welfare of fearful animals arises for a number of reasons. which in turn may have serious consequences on the growth and health of the animals. Table 5.2 Fear and welfare Fear of humans may also reduce the welfare of farm animals. there is also substantial evidence that when regularly interacting with humans. .3 Fear and ease of handling Fear of humans can affect the ease with which farm animals can be observed and handled by stockpeople. Additional concerns for the welfare of these fearful animals will be considered in later in this book (Section 6. fearful animals may experience a chronic stress response and immunosuppression.63** 0. These fearful pigs took longer to move. key reproductive events and immunosuppression.05 and ** = P < 0. with 0 reﬂecting substantial difﬁculty and 4 reﬂecting little or no difﬁculty in moving the pig. based on their approach behaviour to an experimenter in a standard test. 1994c).51* correlations (* = P < 0. consistent correlations have been found between the behavioural response of pigs to humans and their ease of handling.Stockperson Behaviour and Animal Behaviour 117 balance. As shown in Table 5. In more extensive settings.3). Correlations between the behavioural response of pigs to an experimenter in a standard approach test to assess fear of humans and the ease of movement of 24 pigs along an unfamiliar route by an unfamiliar handler (Hemsworth et al.6.6.
1992). While increased familiarity with locations outside the pigs’ pens may be responsible for these effects. particularly on cattle. the sheep were slower to move along a familiar route to a location in which they were either caught or caught and shorn. pigs will often pack together when alarmed and stressed and. Boissy and Bouissou (1988) found that calves that were positively handled by brushing and leading on a halter. consequently. In contrast. had reduced ﬂight distances. and if they are fearful of both the environment and the handler. Geverink et al. perhaps because they might tend to move quickly. 1997. such as avoidance responses to shearing and halter restraint. during rearing. (2004) found that previous handling of dairy cows in the form of talking. may decrease the ease of handling of pigs (Gonyou et al. Other studies. sorting and handling are likely to be difﬁcult.b) found that the dairy calves that predominantly received positive handling during rearing required less effort to load for transport and had lower heart rates during loading than those that received either minimal human contact or predominantly negative handling. Hargreaves and Hutson (1990c) found that although talking. feeding and stroking reduced heart rates. It is possible that . either as a consequence of reduced human contact or human contact of a negative nature. Grandin et al. Furthermore. were easier to capture and lead on a halter and had reduced heart rates and cortisol concentrations after capture and leading.. faster movement by stressed pigs may be counterproductive. Several studies have shown that pigs regularly moved out of their pens prior to slaughter were quicker to move during the early stages of transport (Abbott et al.. In other words. (2001a. Intuitively. (1991) found that while regular positive handling of ewes in the form of talking and stroking resulted in increased approach to a stationary experimenter. Mateo et al.. they are more likely to show exaggerated behavioural responses to handling. Lensink et al. 1998). Waiblinger et al. stroking and feeding sheep hay and lupins reduced their ﬂight distance and heart rate responses to the approaching experimenter.118 Chapter 5 displayed more baulks and were subjectively scored as the most difﬁcult to move by the handler. (1998) found no effect of fear for humans on the time taken to regularly move pigs to and from a weighing area.. such as baulking or ﬂeeing back past the handler. 1987). pigs are generally wary of moving towards an unfamiliar or unpredictable situation (Hemsworth. perhaps because familiarity with the location may facilitate ease of handling. while it might be expected that fearful animals are easy to move. Thus. kicking and restless behaviour in both the presence of humans and during rectal palpation. Pigs will avoid places containing urine from stressed pigs (Vielle-Thomas and Signoret. In contrast. Other studies on pigs also indicate that high levels of fear for humans. 2000). animals that are fearful of humans may actually be difﬁcult to handle for several reasons. For example. also indicate that fear of humans can affect the ease with which farm animals can be observed and handled by stockpeople. increased human contact may also be implicated as Eldridge and Knowles (1994) reported that commercial grower pigs that were regularly handled and moved out of their pens to a range of locations were easier to move in an unfamiliar environment. this was not generalized to other situations. 1986. presumably because stressed pigs release pheromones in their urine and saliva which communicate to other pigs that they have encountered a difﬁcult situation. such as hitting and shouting. Hill et al.
In relation to laying hens. (1999) found that cows stepped more frequently during milking in the presence of an experimenter who had hit or shocked them with a battery-operated cattle prodder than in the presence of an experimenter who had brushed. the close presence of dominant cows at milking or painful conditions. Some observations in the dairy industry indicate positive correlations between the use of negative stockperson behaviours. while fear of humans may affect ease of handling other factors. slaps and kicks by the stockperson. In contrast. both rapid speed of movement and noise made by stockpeople appear to be fear provoking. in the form of ﬂinch. Waiblinger et al. The next chapter will integrate and expand these discussions in order to identify opportunities to manipulate human–animal interactions to inﬂuence farm animal productivity and welfare. such as the animal’s familiarity and experience with the procedure and location and the handling behaviour of the stockperson at the time of handling... 2000. include hits. such as lameness and mastitis. which will decrease the animal’s fear of humans. 2002). Hemsworth et al. are likely to affect ease of handling. include pats. may also affect restlessness at milking. in the close presence of the stockperson during milking (Breuer et al. and observations at meat chicken farms indicate that rapid speed of movement by the stockperson is fear provoking for chickens. Nevertheless. Therefore. fed and gently spoken to them. . as well as the sudden and unexpected appearance of the stockperson. as proposed earlier.Stockperson Behaviour and Animal Behaviour 119 sheep that were less fearful of the experimenter may show more exploration of the familiar route. However. Poultry appear to be sensitive to visual and auditory contact with humans. fear of humans is likely to have implications for the ease with which farm animals can be observed and handled during routine handling and husbandry. While the close presence of the stockperson may affect restlessness in fearful cows. strokes and the hand of the stockperson resting on the back of the animal.7 Conclusion As with experimental studies. more handling difﬁculties may be encountered with animals that are fearful both of the handler and the location in which they are being moved. Rushen et al. 5. hits and loud vocalizations during handling. step and kick responses. such as slaps. The main aversive properties of humans. observations on commercial pigs and dairy cows indicate that conditioned approach–avoidance responses develop as a consequence of associations between the stockperson and aversive and rewarding elements of the handling bouts. while the rewarding properties. cows in the presence of the experimenter that had handled them negatively kicked less during milking preparation. 2000.. and restlessness. The present chapter and Chapters 3 and 4 have considered the inﬂuence of human and animal factors on the productivity and welfare of farm animals. which will increase the animal’s fear of those humans. Negative tactile behaviours appear to be the main determinant of the commercial animal’s fear of humans although there is evidence in dairy cattle that shouting may increase fear of humans.
identifying and consequently addressing the factors regulating fear of humans may enable reductions in fear. Handling studies on farm animals under laboratory conditions have shown that human factors are potentially inﬂuential in affecting the fear responses of commercial farm animals to humans.H. While genetic effects may be inﬂuential for naïve animals. In Chapters 3. maintain or exacerbate the initial fear responses of farm animals to humans. 120 © CAB International 2011. If fear responses are to be manipulated.J.6 A Model of Stockperson– Animal Interactions and their Implications for Livestock 6.1 Introduction The relationships between fear of humans and productivity of livestock observed in commercial settings indicate opportunities to improve animal productivity and welfare. experience with humans may ameliorate. and this chapter will integrate these ﬁndings and present the key factors involved in the relationships between these stockperson and farm animal variables with the objective of presenting a model of human–animal interactions in livestock production. Hemsworth and G. For example. Coleman) . Studies on stockpeople in the livestock industries have identiﬁed some of the inﬂuential human characteristics that affect the behavioural response of farm animals to humans under commercial conditions. with possible improvements in the productivity and welfare of farm animals. it is these human factors and their antecedents that have to be targeted for improvement. Human–Livestock Interactions. tactile and visual contact appear to be important in affecting fear responses. In particular. The chapter will form the basis of an introduction to the next two chapters which deal with the opportunities to change stockperson attitudes and behaviour utilizing the framework outlined in this model. 4 and 5 the inﬂuence of stockperson attitudes on stockperson behaviour and of stockperson behaviour on farm animal behaviour and productivity were considered. Second Edition (P.
animal behaviour and animal productivity and welfare.28 −0.50** 0. (2000) Hemsworth et al. Positive attitudes to the use of petting and the use of verbal and physical effort to handle dairy cows and pigs were negatively correlated with the use of negative tactile behaviours. such as slaps.36* −0.(2000) Hemsworth et al. (1989b) Data reanalysed from Hemsworth et al. 6.20 −0. of a sequential relationship between stockperson attitudes.01) indicate associations between the two variables. (2000) Waiblinger et al.2 Relationships Between Human and Animal Variables There is good evidence.A Model of Stockperson–Animal Interactions 121 6.61** −0.47** −0.1 Stockperson attitudes and behaviour Observations on stockpeople in the pig and dairy industries indicate that the attitudes of stockpeople towards interacting with their animals are predictive of the behaviour of stockpeople towards their animals (Section 4. slapping and shouting when handling pigs and cows and fast speed of movement and loud noise when inspecting poultry.12 −0.1). (1994a) Coleman et al. Correlation between positive behavioural beliefs and negative stockperson behavioura Industry/Study Pig industry Hemsworth et al. (1998) Dairy industry Hemsworth et al. (1996a) aSigniﬁcant Petting and behaviour Effort and behaviour −0.13 −0. These correlations indicate that stockpeople were likely to use less negative tactile behaviour when Table 6.15 −0. pushes and hits (Table 6.19* −0. Questionnaires were used to assess attitudes of the stockpeople on the basis of the stockpeople’s beliefs about their behaviour and the behaviour of their animals.10 −0.2.05 and ** = P < 0.35 – – −0. This section will summarize and extend the previous discussion on these sequential relationships between human factors and key animal variables. stockperson behaviour. Attitudes assessed on the basis of behavioural beliefs and negative stockperson behaviour assessed by the use of negative behaviours. Stockperson attitude–stockperson behaviour correlations in the livestock industries.47** −0.55** −0. . based on handling experiments and observations in the livestock industries.5).1. such as hitting. (2002) Chicken meat industry Cransberg et al.13 correlations (* = P < 0.55** −0. (1995) Data reanalysed from Breuer et al.
in a recent study. positive beliefs about using behaviours likely to move birds when moving through the facility were moderately and positively correlated with the time the stockperson spent in the facility (correlation coefﬁcient of 0. These results demonstrate that one of the antecedents of stockperson behaviour appears to be the attitudes that the stockperson holds towards speciﬁc behaviour. including personality. imposed brieﬂy but regularly by humans. In one of the chicken studies (Hemsworth et al. It appears that those stockperson behaviours that predicted bird behaviour are related to visual cues and include speed of movement. pig and egg industries indicate that the stockperson’s attitude towards interacting with his/her farm animals may affect his/her behaviour towards these animals. hits or shocks with a battery-operated prodder . and this proposal is underpinned by Fishbein and Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein. handling treatments imposed daily for as little as 15–30 s and involving brief slaps. The correlation between attitude towards the effort required to move birds and stockperson behaviour was small. attitudes towards these kinds of stockperson behaviour were not assessed. predominantly with pigs and dairy cattle. found some signiﬁcant relationships between stockperson attitudes and behaviour at Australian and US commercial egg farms. operate indirectly through attitudes.5). Attitudes towards positive tactile behaviours (petting) with chickens were not recorded in these studies because there is little opportunity for routine tactile behaviours between stockpeople and chickens in commercial settings. For example.05). this is most likely because stockpeople do not routinely move birds as part of the production process. This clearly illustrates the need to identify the stockperson behaviours used as the attitude objects that are relevant to the species being studied.. 1980). The generally consistent attitude–behaviour correlations in the dairy. 1996a). The only exception to this is that when the birds are very young. indicate that the level of fear for humans by farm animals is markedly affected by tactile behaviours from stockpeople.2. stockpeople regularly move them to ensure that the birds are exposed to food and water. For example. negative attitudes to laying hens and working with hens were associated with the stockperson making more noise.5. Handling studies on pigs have shown that negative tactile behaviours.1). Edwards (2009). P < 0. and (ii) verbal and physical effort should be infrequently used when interacting with dairy cows and pigs. However. will produce high levels of fear for humans.2 Stockperson behaviour and animal behaviour As reviewed earlier (Section 3. moving faster and spending less time near the birds. 6. handling studies. These attitude–stockperson behaviour relationships have not been established in the meat chicken industry (Table 6.122 Chapter 6 handling their animals if they believed that: (i) petting should be frequently used. The attitude questionnaire should speciﬁcally target these behaviours. As reported earlier (Section 4.1).43. It is important to recognize that this theory proposes that the important dispositional factor in predicting behaviour is attitude and that other dispositional factors.
.1). The main negative behaviours were pushes. as assessed by the time pigs spent near a stationary experimenter (Table 6.2). Thus. hits. consistently resulted in pigs showing marked avoidance of humans (Section 3. while the main positive behaviours were pats. negative tactile behaviours by stockpeople may regulate the fear responses of commercial cows to humans. regular handling involving rapid and close approach by humans resulted in pigs showing a similar avoidance response to humans to that of pigs that received a shock from a battery-operated prodder (Section 3. such as kicking or slapping.1. while the positive tactile behaviours include pats. hand on the cow’s ﬂanks or legs during milking and talking. A high percentage of negative behaviours used by stockpeople. resulted in low fear levels. The percentage of negative tactile behaviours to the total tactile behaviours by the stockperson was positively correlated with the level of fear of humans in pigs. Thus. As in the pig industry. strokes and the hand resting on the pig’s back. strokes. pats or strokes whenever pigs approached. The use of negative behaviours by stockpeople was positively correlated with the level of fear of humans. brief positive handling.2). tail twists and shouts while moving cows in and out of the milking facility and into position in the facility for milking. Observations in the pig industry (Section 5. In contrast. slaps. 6. as assessed by the approach or avoidance behaviour of cows to a stationary experimenter in a standard test (Table 6. kicks and pushes. Furthermore. involving talking. 6. pigs were most fearful of humans at farms in which stockpeople used a high percentage of negative tactile behaviours in handling the animals (Fig.5. Negative tactile behaviours include moderate-to-forceful slaps. cows were most fearful of humans at farms Fig. hits.2).1). will increase the commercial pig’s fear of humans.4) indicate that the nature of human tactile behaviours is an inﬂuential factor affecting the behavioural response of commercial pigs to humans.A Model of Stockperson–Animal Interactions 123 whenever pigs failed to avoid humans.5.
Stockperson behaviour–animal behaviour correlations in the livestock industries. slapping and brief shocking with a battery-operated prodder resulted in heifers and cows rapidly showing avoidance responses to humans in comparison with handling treatments involving talking.5. (2002)h Hemsworth et al.05 and ** = P < 0. stockperson behaviour was assessed in studies: d. positive handling of sheep will reduce their fear of humans.47** 0. Treatments involving a human placing his/her hand either on or in the chicken’s cage and allowing birds to observe other birds being handled have been shown to .32 0. (1996a)i Cransberg et al. As with cattle. strokes and brushing (Fig.5. (1989b)d Data reanalysed from Coleman et al. cFear of humans was assessed in studies: d.2.e.124 Chapter 6 Table 6. hby the distance at which cows showed avoidance to an approaching experimenter. gby the frequency of negative tactile behaviours such as hits and slaps. (2000)e Breuer et al.1). have been shown to reduce avoidance of humans in a range of testing situations designed to assess the fear responses to humans (Boissy and Bouissou. Similarly.01) indicate associations between the two variables.2). i. Handling experiments have also shown that cows will quickly learn to avoid humans using negative behaviours (Section 3. 1988.59** Industry Pig Study Hemsworth et al. Several studies on adult sheep have shown that talking.jby speed of movement.5. positive handling of cattle involving the imposition of positive tactile behaviours.2)..c 0.1). in which stockpeople frequently used these negative behaviours in handling their cows.43* 0.b. 1992). stroking and feeding sheep reduced their avoidance of approaching humans (Section 3. and kby the proportion of hens that remained close to an experimenter.f. Moderate or forceful slaps imposed brieﬂy whenever heifers failed to avoid the approach of humans subsequently resulted in reductions in their approach to humans and an increase in their ﬂight distance from approaching humans in comparison with positive handling involving talking. (2000)j Edwards (2009)k Dairy Meat chicken Egg (hens) aSigniﬁcant bNegative correlations (* = P < 0.33** 0. and kby the noise made by the stockperson. Studies with poultry have shown that chickens and laying hens are particularly sensitive to visual contact with humans (Sections 3. (2000)g Waiblinger et al.5.fby the time animals spent near a stationary experimenter.1 and 3. 6. Boivin et al. gby the percentage of cows that approached close to a stationary experimenter.45* 0. Brief exposure to handling treatments involving restraint with a nose tong. Negative stockperson behaviour and level of fear for humansa.30 0.jby the number of meat chickens that remained close to an experimenter moving in standard manner among the chickens. (2000)f Hemsworth et al.40* 0. patting and stroking.e. such as pats.hby the percentage of negative tactile behaviours such as hits and slaps. brushing and feeding. i.
not positively. 6. Observations on stockpeople and birds at meat chicken farms reveal that the visual cues from the stockperson may regulate the fear responses of commercial birds to humans (Section 5. mildly fear provoking resulting in rapid habituation of the fear responses to humans. frequently tapping on objects in the facility and infrequently waving. It is possible that waving by the stockperson. Regular close visual contact with humans.2. These correlations indicate that birds are most fearful of humans at farms in which stockpeople move quickly through the facility. Positive interactions by stockpeople. The speed of movement of the stockperson was correlated with the level of fear for humans by birds (Table 6. which intuitively appears to be fear provoking. such as active interaction and tactile interaction. or a consequence of less fearful birds remaining closer to . such as the hand on the cow’s back. suggesting that this tactile handling by humans may contain aversive elements for birds. will reduce the commercial cow’s fear of humans. frequency of waving by the stockperson as he or she moved through the facility inspecting birds and equipment was negatively. may be either rewarding. Handling studies on laying hens also demonstrate the inﬂuential effects of visual contact with humans on the fear responses of birds to humans. surprisingly.4). reduce the subsequent avoidance of humans shown by young chickens.2).A Model of Stockperson–Animal Interactions 125 Fig. involving positive elements such as slow and deliberate movements by humans. Interestingly. associated with avoidance by birds of humans. Frequency of tapping on objects by the stockperson while moving through the facility was positively associated with fear levels but. reduced the subsequent avoidance behaviour of mature laying hens to humans in comparison with minimal human contact or visual human contact involving aversive elements such as fast speed of movement and unexpected human contact. close visual contact without tactile contact was more effective in reducing fear than picking up and stroking the bird.
which in itself may be fear provoking. which will decrease the animal’s fear of humans. include pats. rapid speed of movement by the stockperson. and the tactile contact that accompanies fast speed of movement by the stockperson and the corresponding avoidance responses (ﬂight and vocalization) by birds that receive tactile contact from the stockperson may exacerbate these fear responses throughout the ﬂock. In contrast. positive visual contact may be more effective in reducing levels of fear for humans than human tactile contact. necessitating the frequent use of this behaviour to move birds from under the stockperson’s feet.6. include hits. sudden and unexpected appearance of the stockperson and noise made by the stockperson may be fear provoking for poultry.1). For pigs and cattle. fast speed of movement appears to be fear provoking. Poultry appear to be particularly sensitive to close and regular visual contact with humans and. indeed. Furthermore. observations in the pig industry have revealed negative correlations. noise made by stockpeople during routine inspection and maintenance in the accommodation facility was associated with birds showing increased avoidance of humans. These studies with farm animals indicate that conditioned approach– avoidance responses develop as a consequence of associations between the stockperson and the rewarding and aversive elements of the handling bouts.6. As noted in Chapter 3.3 and Section 3. Furthermore. little is known of the effects of other forms of human contact. which will increase the animal’s fear of humans.126 Chapter 6 the stockperson as he/she moves slowly through the facility. These correlations indicate that the productivity of pigs was lowest at farms in which pigs were most fearful of humans. while the rewarding properties. 6. the main aversive properties of humans. It is noteworthy that Hemsworth et al. in a number of experiments . between fear of humans and reproductive performance of pigs (Table 6. because.2. indicating the importance of fear for humans on pig productivity. strokes and the hand of the stockperson resting on the animal. close approach to and tactile contact with cages or hens by stockpeople were associated with birds showing reduced avoidance of humans.1). based on farm averages. In recent observations on stockperson and bird behaviour at Australian and US commercial egg farms (Section 5. The mechanism responsible for these adverse effects of high fear on productivity appears to be a chronic stress response.3 Animal behaviour and animal productivity and welfare Handling treatments inducing high levels of fear of humans have been shown to reduce the growth and reproductive performance of pigs (Section 3.4). this distinct behavioural pattern may alert birds to the imminent approach of the stockperson and reduce the chances of unexpected exposure. (1989b) found that variation in fear of humans accounted for about 20% of the variation in reproductive performance across the study farms. In contrast. These associations indicate that fear of humans was high at farms in which stockpeople frequently made noise and infrequently closely approached and had tactile contact with birds and cages. In contrast. slaps and kicks by the stockperson.
feed conversion in terms of ratio of feed to gain in meat chickens and eggs produced per day per hen. i.43* Dairy Meat chicken Egg (hens) aSigniﬁcant correlations (* = P < 0.e.27 −0. reduced avoidance of humans and resulted in higher egg production than handling that involved minimal and at times startling and unpredictable human contact.57** −0.3 and Section 3. Positive handling of adult laying hens. milk yield per cow. (1994b)i Cransberg et al.58* 0.A Model of Stockperson–Animal Interactions Table 6.46* −0.c −0.51* −0.2).b.55* −0. cProductivity variables were number of piglets produced per sow per year. (2000)h Hemsworth et al.6. (1981b)d Hemsworth et al. and l. based on farm averages.gby the time pigs or cows spent near a stationary experimenter.3. Both egg production of laying hens and the efﬁciency of feed conversion of meat chickens were generally negatively correlated with the level of fear for humans by birds: high fear levels were associated with low productivity.6. (1994a)f Breuer et al. Animal behaviour–animal productivity correlations in the livestock industries. (1992)l Edwards (2009)m Level of fear for humans and animal productivitya.2). between the level of fear of humans and the productivity of commercial meat chickens and laying hens (Table 6. on pigs. together with depressions in growth and reproductive performance (see Section 3.05 and ** = P < 0. .j. There is no obvious explanation for this single contrary ﬁnding. Edwards (2009) found a positive correlation between the level of fear for humans and the productivity of commercial laying hens. As also reviewed in Chapter 3 (Section 3. In contrast. handling of a negative nature has generally been shown to reduce the growth performance of chickens.01* −0.f.1). (1989b)e Hemsworth et al.mby the proportion of hens that remained close to an approaching experimenter. bFear of humans was assessed in studies: d. involving slow and deliberate movements.49* −0. (2000)g Hemsworth et al.6. Field observations on poultry have found signiﬁcant negative relationships.10 −0.kby the number of meat chickens that remained close to an experimenter moving in standard manner among the chickens. talking and offering feed improved growth rates and feed efﬁciency and increased resistance to infection more than either minimal human contact or negative handling involving shouting and banging on cages. Positive handling of young chickens. (1996a)k Barnett et al. 127 Industry Pig Study Hemsworth et al. (2000)j Hemsworth et al. hby the percentage of cows that approached close to a stationary experimenter. These results and those of other studies provide support for the proposition that handling treatments that increase fear of humans will depress the productivity of poultry. involving gentle touching. handling treatments that resulted in high fear levels also produced either a sustained elevation in the basal concentrations of the stress hormone cortisol or enlargement of the adrenal glands.01) indicate associations between the two variables.
In more extensive management settings. fear may also lead to injuries in animals trying to avoid humans during routine inspections and handling.128 Chapter 6 Observations on commercial dairy cows also indicate the existence of a signiﬁcant negative fear–productivity relationship (Table 6. a sustained elevation in corticosteroids was found in animals showing high fear levels. there is evidence to implicate a causal basis for the relationships between stockperson behaviour. physiology and productivity of livestock may be less likely because of less contact with humans.2). These attitudes and consequent behaviours predominantly affect the animal’s fear of humans. fear of humans may also reduce the welfare of farm animals. These sequential relationships between human and animal variables are depicted in Fig. as in a number of handling studies. 1965. and this aspect will be considered further in the next chapter.6. Therefore.. 1993). furthermore.3 Model of Human–Animal Interactions in Livestock Production As a consequence of this research on human–farm animal interactions. 6. in turn. affects the animal’s performance and welfare. Several studies have shown that negative handling increases residual milk in cows and tends to reduce milk yield in heifers.7 and 5. 6. The mechanism whereby fear affects performance and welfare appears to be through a chronic stress response. The approach behaviour of dairy cows to humans was positively correlated with the milk yield of the farm. Furthermore.3. Jones and Waddington. there is the evidence that when regularly interacting with humans. handling studies and observations in the livestock industries on fear–productivity relationships indicate that high levels of fear of humans may limit the productivity and welfare of farm animals. 1992). this behaviour is strongly inﬂuenced by the attitudes that the stockperson holds about the animals..3). the following model of human–animal interactions in livestock production has been proposed (Hemsworth et al. Negative handling resulting in increased fear of humans may depress productivity in dairy cattle (Section 3. The concern for the welfare of fearful animals arises because fear is generally considered an undesirable emotional state of suffering (Brambell et al. One possible mechanism responsible for these effects is a chronic stress response.6.3).6. acute effects are likely in situations in which fearful animals are in close contact with humans. This . positive handling improves growth rate and feed conversion of veal calves. Based on handling studies. chronic effects of negative human contact on the behaviour. Because a stockperson’s behaviour towards animals is largely under his/her control. As discussed earlier (Sections 3. Nevertheless. fearful animals may experience a chronic stress response and immunosuppression. animal fear and animal productivity.3 and Section 3. in comparison with minimal human contact. indicating that milk yield was lowest at farms in which cows were highly fearful of humans. which in turn may have serious consequences on the growth and health of the animals. which. The human–animal relationship thus may have practical implications for farm animals in production systems in which there are close or frequent human–animal interactions.
ﬂeeing. A model of human–animal relationships in the livestock industries. sequential relationship is not necessarily a surprise to some. Therefore. but what is a surprise is the magnitude and consistency of the relationships across a number of industries. if a stockperson has a negative attitude towards handling pigs and behaves negatively toward pigs making them more difﬁcult to handle (because of increased baulking. The major task of stockpeople in modern animal production systems is to care for farm animals by managing their social.A Model of Stockperson–Animal Interactions 129 Stockperson Animal Attitudes Behaviour Fear Stress Productivity and welfare Fig. we mainly considered the role of attitudes as dispositional factors in determining behaviour where such behaviour is under the volitional control of the person. grow and. particularly those working in the livestock industries.). as we shall see in Chapter 7. However. the pigs’ behaviour will reinforce the stockperson’s original attitudes. slipping. while also providing . pig and poultry industries indicate that fear of humans may account for a quarter to a third of the variation in productivity seen across farms in these industries demonstrates the importance of human–animal interactions on farm animal productivity. Such a responsibility requires stockpeople to have appropriate technical knowledge and skills to provide the animal in a timely and efﬁcient manner with the correct conditions to survive. Thus. we will discuss in detail how this feedback loop can be used to train stockpeople by targeting these key attitudes and behaviour simultaneously. 6. for example. In addition. together with the motivation to utilize these attributes (work motivation). the outcome of the behaviour will also feed back on the stockperson’s attitudes. The feedback loop in the model provides an opportunity to modify stockperson attitudes and behaviour. the mere fact that a stockperson behaves in a particular way will tend to reinforce that stockperson’s attitudes towards that behaviour. it is obvious that the stockperson’s knowledge and skills in animal production. climatic. Managers and employers of stockpeople can inﬂuence the knowledge and skills of their stockpeople by encouraging and providing opportunities for their staff to participate in external and internal training programmes. etc. if in a reproductive stage. So. In our earlier discussion of the relationship between attitudes and behaviour.3. The fact that some studies in the dairy. nutritional and health requirements to ensure their optimal productivity and welfare. In Chapter 7. are important determinants of the productivity and welfare of his/her stock. the behavioural situation feeds back on attitudes. reproduce at a high level.
when they are at suboptimal levels. the attitudinal and behavioural proﬁles of the stockperson may have marked effects on animal productivity and welfare. 1998) has indicated relationships between the stockperson’s attitudes and a number of job-related variables. in turn. Stockpeople with these favourable relationships with their birds and with high job satisfaction visited the facility more often. which may not actually increase job satisfaction but. In fact. often called hygiene factors. work motivation have traditionally been considered to include achievement. may inﬂuence a number of these other inﬂuential characteristics and thus the work performance of the stockperson. the stockperson’s job satisfaction is likely to deteriorate. such as a recognized career and remuneration pathway. thus being more likely to observe any problems before they developed too far. four scores were obtained from questions relating to aspects of the job. and aligning remuneration and promotional opportunities with these aspects. the work itself and advancement. recognition. with adverse consequences on work motivation. motivating factors that appear to be important determinants of job satisfaction and thus. it is not too difﬁcult to recognize that the attitude of the stockperson to the subject of his work. labelled ‘Job enjoyment’. act to depress job satisfaction. the attitude of the stockperson towards the animal may affect such job-related characteristics as work motivation. the stockperson’s commitment to the surveillance of and the attendance to production and welfare problems facing the animal is likely to deteriorate. both via fear of humans by the animal and via work performance of the stockperson. For example. (2007) found that mortality of broiler chickens was lower at farms where stockpeople reported a favourable relationship with the birds and a liking for the job. some research on 87 stockpeople at a large integrated piggery in Australia (Coleman et al. The ﬁrst score. motivation to learn new skills and knowledge about the animal and job satisfaction. In many industries outside agriculture. in conjunction with the consequent effects that this may create.130 Chapter 6 the working conditions and rewards to encourage their staff to utilize their knowledge and skills. This pathway in which a stockperson’s technical knowledge and skills may inﬂuence animal productivity and welfare can be addressed by the provision of appropriate training courses for stockpeople. De Alencar et al.. which in turn may affect work performance of the stockperson. In this study. if the stockperson’s attitude towards the animal is poor. production and welfare difﬁculties). will not only promote technical training for stockpeople but also provide a range of beneﬁts. comprised ﬁve items including ‘How boring is your job?’ and ‘How long do you think you will continue in the pig industry?’ The . while promoting self-esteem in stockpeople and the professionalism and image of the industries. include company policy. pay. In trying to integrate the stockperson attitudes and behaviour with these other job-related characteristics. working conditions and beneﬁts. responsibility. (such as handling. the animal. Furthermore. Thus. Job satisfaction is widely regarded as an important factor affecting work motivation. Other factors. it is clear that if the stockperson’s attitude towards interacting with farm animals (the subject of the stockperson’s tasks) is poor. Therefore. Developments in deﬁning the necessary knowledge and skills required in each animal industry.
The ﬁrst score.4. labelled ‘Work breaks’.4).b Negative belief Working about Negative with Characteristics Pigs pigs behaviour pigs of pigs as pets −0.4.30* −0. came from four questions including ‘How often do you discuss work methods during tea and lunch breaks?’ and ‘Would you attend training courses in your own time if they were available?’ The second score. Other stockperson characteristics may also inﬂuence the performance of stockpeople in livestock production.12 −0. comprised three questions including ‘How much do you know about diseases in pigs?’ and ‘How much do you know about factors which affect reproduction in pigs?’ Low scores meant low technical knowledge and willingness to learn.31* −0. .32* 0.25 −0.25* 0.00 −0. Correlations among attitude sub-scales and work-related variables in the pig industry (from Coleman et al. High scores meant high job satisfaction in all cases.23 −0. some modest relationships were found Table 6. was based on two items: ‘How much do you look forward to tea and lunch breaks?’ and ‘How much do you look forward to the end of the working day?’ The fourth score.02 −0.24 −0.34* −0.21 −0. 1998). The possible interrelationships between attitude towards animals and these other job-related characteristics are depicted in Fig. scores for the attitude sub-scales indicate a negative belief.15 −0. In the study of 87 pig stockpeople by Coleman et al.16 −1.32* −0. (1998) described earlier.26* −0.10 −0.25 −0.46** 0.4).42** −0. labelled ‘Learning’.09 −0. came from two items: ‘When you go away for holidays.10 −0. It was found that the willingness of stockpeople to attend training sessions in their own time (score labelled ‘Learning’) was correlated with attitudes towards characteristics of pigs and towards most aspects of working with pigs (Table 6.01 Work-related variable Job enjoyment Work breaks Working conditions Learning Knowledge aSigniﬁcant bHigh correlations (* = P < 0. Job enjoyment and opinions about working conditions showed similar relationships with attitudes (Table 6. 6.A Model of Stockperson–Animal Interactions 131 second score. labelled ‘Family’.32* −0.05 and ** = P < 0.39* −0.. Two scores were also extracted from those questions relating to technical knowledge and willingness to learn. Thus.28* −0. while high scores for the work-related variables indicate a positive response.25 −0.03 −0. the stockperson’s attitudes may indeed be related to aspects of work apart from handling of animals.20 −0. Attitude sub-scalea.30* −0.02 −0.38* Handling nonHandling oestrous oestrous pigs pigs −0. labelled ‘Knowledge’.42** −0.01) indicate associations between the two variables.13 −0. labelled ‘Working conditions’. do you go with a member of your family?’ and ‘Who normally supervises your children when you are not able to?’ The third score.20 −0. was also based on two items: ‘I often have to work in cramped conditions’ and ‘The air is clean at work’.
12 −0. between empathy and stockperson attitudes.5). as a characteristic of a person. while high scores for the empathy variables indicate a positive response.08 −0.5. As shown in Table 6.01 −0.4. there was a general pattern of negative correlations between empathy and negative attitudes towards pigs. Attitude sub-scalea.42** −0. 6.05 and ** = P < 0.32* −0.03 −0.27 −0. scores for the attitude sub-scales indicate a negative belief. 1998).b Negative Working Pigs Empathy belief about Negative with Characteristics as variable pigs behaviour pigs of pigs pets Feelings Reactivity aSigniﬁcant bHigh Handling Handling non-oestrous oestrous pigs pigs −0. The relationships between stockperson attitudes and behaviour and other job-related characteristics. Table 6.35* 0.48** −0. Correlations among attitude sub-scales and empathy in the pig industry (from Coleman et al.132 Chapter 6 Stockperson Animal Productivity and welfare Stress Attitudes Behaviour Fear Job satisfaction Work motivation Stockperson work performance Motivation to learn Technical skills and knowledge Fig. This ﬁnding is consistent with Ajzen and Fishbein’s (Ajzen and Fishbein.31* −0. suggesting that empathy may inﬂuence the development of beliefs about pigs themselves and about handling pigs (Table 6. is an antecedent to attitude rather than a direct determinant of behaviour..01) indicate associations between the two variables.30* −0.26 0. 1980) assertion that empathy.18 0. . The ‘Feelings’ measure consisted of three questions including ‘How do you feel when pigs are injured?’ and ‘To what extent do you think weaners are cute?’ The ‘Reactivity’ sub-scale comprised three questions including ‘How much do pigs react to you?’ and ‘I get very upset when I see an animal in pain’.20 correlations (* = P < 0.5.
As reviewed earlier (Sections 4. work motivation and motivation to learn and. the attitudes and behaviour of stockpeople to their animals have profound effects on these animals. The stockperson’s attitude and behaviour may have either direct or indirect effects on other important job-related characteristics such as job satisfaction. which can be outlined as follows. 6. Because a stockperson’s behaviour towards animals is largely under volitional control.A Model of Stockperson–Animal Interactions 133 Fig. personality is one of the key antecedents of attitude to animals. thus. 6. also affect animal productivity . 6. in turn. this behaviour is strongly inﬂuenced by the attitudes that the stockperson holds about the animals.4). productivity and welfare of farm animals. it is expected to inﬂuence behaviour by affecting attitudes (Fig. and while personality has been shown to be weakly correlated with stockperson behaviour.3 and 4. which. Irrespective of the production system. These attitudes and consequent behaviours predominantly affect the animal’s fear of humans. Similarly.5. and a model of human– animal interactions in livestock production has been proposed.4 Conclusions Research on the interactions between humans and farm animals has shown interrelationships between the stockperson’s attitudes and behaviour and the behaviour. empathy may be a factor underlying the development of positive attitudes toward farm animals. The mechanism whereby fear affects performance and welfare appears to be through a chronic stress response. affects the animal’s performance and welfare.5).
Stockperson selection and training programmes addressing these key attitudinal and behavioural proﬁles appear to offer the livestock industries potential to improve animal productivity and welfare. . The sequential relationships between human and animal variables indicate the opportunity to target stockperson attitudes and behaviour in order to improve animal productivity and welfare. and the attendance to. welfare issues is most likely highly questionable. and this is the subject of the next two chapters.134 Chapter 6 and welfare. A less obvious risk to the welfare of farm animals arises in situations in which the attitude and behaviour of the stockperson towards the animals are negative because the stockperson’s commitment to the surveillance of.
and thereby inﬂuence animal performance and welfare via this pathway. pigs and poultry.J. productivity and welfare of farm animals. it is necessary to appreciate the factors that inﬂuence the establishment and maintenance of attitudes and behaviour.7 Changing Stockperson Attitudes and Behaviour 7. 7.1 Introduction In the previous chapter. particularly dairy cattle. Human–Livestock Interactions. Coleman) 135 . feeding back on the attitudes and thus behaviour of the stockperson. The aim in this chapter is to review the principles underlying attitude and behavioural change and to discuss the research in livestock production in which attitude and behavioural change has been attempted. with animal behaviour. for example. In addition to this direct pathway in which the stockperson’s behaviour affects animal performance and welfare. it is suggested that the stockperson’s attitudes may inﬂuence other important job-related characteristics of the stockperson. © CAB International 2011. Based on this research it is proposed that sequential relationships exist between the stockperson’s attitudes and behaviour and the behaviour. Thus these sequential relationships between human and animal variables indicate the opportunity to target stockperson attitudes and behaviour in order to improve animal productivity and welfare.2 Factors Inﬂuencing Stockperson Attitudes and Behaviour In order to understand how the attitudes and behaviour of stockpeople can be changed. the research on the interactions between humans and farm animals was reviewed and a model of human–animal interactions in livestock production was developed. support this model.H. Studies on both experimental and commercial animals. such as job satisfaction and job motivation. There are also reciprocal relationships between attitudes and behaviour: attitudes do not simply determine behaviour but the outcomes associated with this behaviour feed back on the beliefs of the stockperson. Second Edition (P. Hemsworth and G.
participants . An example of this is as follows.136 Chapter 7 7. and so experiences. the observer would experience a pairing of the object ‘pig’ with the vicariously experienced emotion of disgust. This has implications for training programmes that are designed to change stockperson attitudes because it demonstrates that attitudes can be both learned and ‘unlearned’. including the evaluation of objects. Using partial reinforcement. By classical conditioning. including the acquisition of attitudes (Olson and Mitchell. mere observation of an attitude object and another person’s emotional response to that object can be sufﬁcient for the observer to develop an attitude by classical or operant conditioning as though the observer was directly involved in the experience. Interestingly. The processes of instrumental and classical conditioning in animals that were discussed in Chapter 5 also apply to human learning. If this was repeated sufﬁciently often. there is widespread evidence that people can and do learn attitudes through observation. This research clearly demonstrated that reinforcement schedules affect attitude formation and attitude change consistent with the learning theory principles outlined in Chapter 5. acquire their attitudes and behaviour towards the animals under their care. the observer would develop a negative attitude towards pigs. Kanekar (1976) proposed that attitudes can be acquired by conditioning without any ﬁrst-hand experience of the attitude object. resistance to counter-conditioning was found to vary inversely with consistency of reinforcement. However. or largely irrelevant. the immigrants were described in a way that made them either very relevant to the participants in the study.2. Maio et al. and at the same time shows clear disgust towards pigs. First. 1975). are inﬂuential in the acquisition of attitudes and behaviour towards farm animals. Some participants were exposed to a counter-conditioning regime to establish a negative attitude. and counter-conditioning to the development of an attitude towards a hypothetical ethnic group. Whether their attitude was positive or negative varied directly with the amount of reinforcement. while others simply ﬁlled out a questionnaire to assess their attitudes. Two variables were systematically varied. Secondly. The direct evidence in support of Kanekar’s view is scarce. Kerpelman and Himmelfarb (1971) demonstrated that attitudes. This rests on the assumption that people can vicariously experience the emotions of others. say a pig. particularly those when ﬁrst interacting with animals or ﬁrst observing others interacting with animals. Suppose that a person observes another person expressing a strong negative attitude towards a particular farm animal. (1994) carried out a study in which people were given information about a new immigrant group.1 Learning and attitude acquisition Stockpeople. Because these emotional experiences can act as reinforcers. can occur through conditioning. Furthermore. Such processes are particularly relevant to understanding the way in which attitudes and behaviours develop in stockpeople. the attitude object had acquired a positive or negative evaluative meaning. humans can also learn indirectly by observing behaviour in others rather than by direct conditioning processes. Nevertheless. and in the context of varying motivational states. through both classical and instrumental conditioning. various reinforcement schedules were used to establish a positive attitude in 160 undergraduates.
The students were then paid either nothing. 7. those paid nothing told the truth.00 or $20. Although the interpretation of the results becomes a little complicated. Once a person carries out a particular behaviour. was its emphasis on the reciprocal relationship between attitudes and behaviour. Those paid nothing or $20. one group was given descriptions of positive reactions. $1. In other words. the explanation can be derived from the theory of cognitive dissonance. participants formed more positive attitudes than when consistently negative emotions were provided. those students who were paid nothing and who had not been exposed to persuasion felt comfortable in telling the truth about how boring the experiment had been. that people can acquire attitudes indirectly without having any direct experience with the attitude object. those students who received either $1. Those students who had been paid $20. They therefore changed their beliefs to be consonant with their actual behaviour. brieﬂy described in Section 4.2 Effects of behaviour on attitudes One of the major contributions of the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger. In two of the experimental conditions. direct experience with an attitude object can also lead to the development of attitudes through learning. from the foregoing.00 agreed with the other student and said that the experiment was enjoyable.00 or $20. 1957). each student who was to be paid was asked (persuaded really) to tell another person that the experiment had been very interesting and that the person would enjoy it.5.2.00 were asked to lie about how enjoyable the task was.2. The classic study in this area was reported by Festinger and Carlsmith in 1959.00 (a lot of money in 1957. So. and those paid $20. because they had acted in a way that was inconsistent with their real beliefs. students were told to tell another student that performing a very boring task was. basically. Those who had been paid $1. and the other group was given descriptions of negative reactions. when the experiment was done). Of course. those who were paid $1.00 were more prepared to see the payment as pressure and therefore that their behaviour was consistent with the amount of that pressure. What they did was to ask undergraduate students to spend an hour performing a very boring task. It is clear. All students were subsequently interviewed and asked whether they enjoyed the experiment.00 said that they did not enjoy the experiment and were less willing to participate in the future. Curiously. in fact. but also behaviour inﬂuences attitudes. not boring at all. .Changing Stockperson Attitudes and Behaviour 137 were told about others’ emotional reactions to the immigrants. This refers to the fact that not only do attitudes inﬂuence behaviour. Basically. and that they would participate in a similar experiment. In other words. there is a tendency to modify those attitudes that are relevant to performing that behaviour. Before being paid. Those who were paid nothing were not told anything about the task.00 were not persuaded by the fact that the student had told them that the task was enjoyable. When consistently positive emotional descriptions were provided and personal relevance was high.00 felt uncomfortable about this.
handling techniques and so on. 2005). including techniques for feeding. psychologically. health management. some of which is consonant with our existing beliefs. then it is necessary to explore ways in which we manage. Once a behavioural strategy is established. Most attempts to induce attitude change through the mass media are designed to effect a behavioural change in only a small percentage of the population. there is a substantial body of evidence to show that there is a reciprocal relationship between attitudes and behaviour (Olson and Stone.4). The values of each behaviour are determined by feedback from work mates.3 Resistance to attitude change If an attempt is to be made to change the behaviour of speciﬁc individuals. then it is necessary to take into account explicitly those factors that may inﬂuence the change process. then that person will tend to change the attitude to make it consistent with the behaviour. it is useful to look at some of the speciﬁc ways in which individuals resist change. that is. The idea is that a small percentage of people changing brand loyalty. and some of which is clearly dissonant. a broad understanding of the principles governing such factors can be derived from Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance. While Festinger’s (1957) theory offers a general insight into how these strategies work. This information is then combined on the basis of expectancy value.3. Take.2. 1957). for example. the behaviour of a person who works in the pig industry. A discussion of how to induce change in targeted individuals is presented in Section 7. A knowledge of these speciﬁc strategies can help . If a person performs a behaviour that is inconsistent with his or her current attitude. for example. is sufﬁcient to produce a signiﬁcant proﬁt for a cigarette company. on the basis of the sum of the values of each attitude or belief relevant to a particular behaviour multiplied by how positively or negatively each behaviour is valued. This has important implications for attitude change because changing attitudes should be most effective when the attitudes and the related behaviours are targeted concurrently. Before proceeding to that discussion. supervisors’ comments and so on. If we are to understand how attitudes are changed and what are the sources of resistance to change. There are many speciﬁc strategies that an individual can use to resist attitude and behavioural change. It is normal for us to be exposed to a variety of information. the person seeks out all the information relevant to the job. This includes a variety of things. assisting with matings and farrowing (parturition).138 Chapter 7 While there has been much argument about the best theoretical explanation for the results of this study. the person often engages in behaviour that may not be entirely rational to defend. behaviour of the animals. While there are many factors that may inﬂuence this process. 7. Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance has been applied to the development of an explanation for people’s resistance to attitude change (Festinger. This approach was used in the cognitive behavioural training packages to be discussed later in this chapter (Section 7. When entering the industry for the ﬁrst time. discrepant or conﬂicting information. it is useful to have some insight into why individuals resist attitude change.
a stockperson may strongly believe that it is essential that farm animals be taught who is boss. the stockperson may say ‘some pigs are difﬁcult to handle and you need to use a moderate amount of force’. it is necessary to take into account all of these sources of resistance to change. and is therefore more resistant to change. These factors are summarized in Fig. only new information supportive of the previous decision is processed. Finally. This person. otherwise they will tend to dominate the stockperson and be difﬁcult or even dangerous to handle. if the stockperson is told that even moderate negative behaviours affect pig handling and production.2 is an example of this. but involves the changing of established and habitual attitudes and behaviours. One method of defending an established behaviour is to attempt to reduce that dissonance which comes from new information. Some personality variables may contribute to resistance to attitude change. We will discuss this in some detail in the next section. How strong the current attitude is will affect the amount of resistance to attitude change. who have a strong trust in authority and who are intolerant of disagreement. some of your work mates will ridicule the things you have learned. When attempting to change the attitudes and behaviour of individuals. you have learned some important husbandry techniques and your work mates will just be talking out of ignorance’. a person may refuse to discuss the effects of handling on pig reproductive performance. Here the person is reducing the importance of dissonant elements. For example. 1959). Selective exposure occurs when a person seeks out information that supports an earlier decision. A major research programme conducted at Yale University in the 1950s and early 1960s attempted to identify these factors (Janis and Hovland. The work of Adorno et al. Thus.Changing Stockperson Attitudes and Behaviour 139 when designing a training procedure for experienced stockpeople. and avoids information that is dissonant. the stockperson has become inoculated against information counter to his/her newly acquired beliefs. therefore. This refers to the process in which a person has been warned of the opposing view. In fact. 7. and therefore has a prepared defence against it. If a person has a strong personal investment in a set of beliefs. In this way. Using the example from the pig industry. then these beliefs will be resistant to change. 1964). ‘When you go back into the piggery. This was later extended by Rokeach (1960) to include dogmatism to describe people who hold very strong opinions. (1950) on authoritarian personality showed that authoritarian people were reluctant to accept information from a person who was not seen to be an expert or to have high degree of authority. Thus. Another strategy to reduce dissonance is selective exposure.1. . because such training does not simply involve the imparting of information. a trainer may say to a stockperson. The authoritarian personality discussed earlier in Section 4. For example. both positive and negative. may resist attempts to persuade him or her that fewer negative behaviours are necessary. some characteristics of the message and its source can affect resistance to attitude change. a stockperson high on dogmatism may resist attitude change because the trainer ‘has never worked in a piggery’ and is therefore not an expert. In this way. Resistance to attitude change can also arise from what is termed ‘inoculation’ (McGuire.
Particular individuals are not the targets of such campaigns.2. all serve to attenuate the impact of the message. 7.1. involves processes somewhat different from those in the normal . the environment in which it is received and characteristics and prior experience of the individual.3.2. When it comes to inducing behavioural change in individuals. Factors that affect attitude change.3 Changing Attitudes and Behaviour As discussed in Section 7.140 Chapter 7 Source of information Expertise Trustworthiness Likeability Status Race Religion Effect of the message Message characteristics Order of arguments One-sided versus two-sided Type of appeal Explicit versus implicit conclusion Opinion change Perception change Affect change Action change Person characteristics Persuadability Initial position Intelligence Self-esteem Personality Fig. this is now discussed in more detail. rather than at the community level. the higher resources required need to be offset by a high success rate: techniques that merely deliver a message on a ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ basis are not appropriate. the medium via which it is transmitted. because these campaigns work on the principle that only a small percentage of individuals will be behaviourally inﬂuenced by the campaign.1 Individual change Inducing behavioural change at the level of the individual. This is because the multitude of factors associated with the source of the information. advertising campaigns through the mass media are designed to induce change in only a very small percentage of the population. Approaches that take into account individual differences and that are targeted at the individual are more likely to lead to behavioural change (Coleman. 7. 2010). 7.
Kendall and Hollon (1979) identiﬁed two basic principles underlying cognitive–behavioural techniques. they are noisy’. expectancies. Turk and Salovey (1985a. in a classroom situation. These laws were discussed in Chapter 5. beliefs. These schemata also include affective components. In other words.b) argue that schemata induce people to selectively attend to the world around them. Much of the cognitive–behavioural research in the general psychology literature has focused on treatment of people with inappropriate schemata. are explicitly targeted. For example.2 Cognitive–behavioural intervention Cognitive–behavioural interventions are based on the idea that people have schemata (plural of schema) about a particular set of objects.Changing Stockperson Attitudes and Behaviour 141 classroom situation. The second principle is that attitudes. assessment and feedback techniques. and normal attitude– behaviour relationships ﬁt the cognitive–behavioural model.3. and that were outlined in the previous section. including ‘they squeal. This is usually accomplished by providing information in a variety of interesting ways and by reinforcing the knowledge acquisition process using various motivational. no particular behavioural end point is used. As will be discussed later. students are merely expected to develop their conceptual and analytic skills and knowledge. people who inappropriately judge themselves as incompetent or inferior may not be able to cope with routine work or family problems. In the classroom situation. Of necessity. may underperform and may avoid activities for which they feel inadequate. To understand how attitudes and behaviour might be changed in individuals with a high success rate. For example. Typically. cognitive–behavioural intervention techniques offer a powerful tool. This means that such individuals may behave inappropriately and that the schemata will be difﬁcult to change. attributions and other cognitive activities are central to producing behaviour. the objective is to impart knowledge. the costs involved in such a process are substantially higher per individual than those in classroom techniques. feelings about the objects that make up the schemata. 7. The ﬁrst principle was that cognitions are subject to the same laws of learning as are overt behaviours. that is. However. but the magnitude of change can be expected to be much larger than that induced by classroom teaching. altering well-established attitudes and beliefs and preparing the person to handle reactions from others towards the individual following change. These principles are quite consistent with all of our earlier discussions about the . but also involves changing established habits. they have a distinctive smell. cognitive–behavioural techniques are very useful in changing attitudes and behaviour in the agricultural industries. Inducing behavioural change not only involves imparting knowledge and skills. a person working in the pig industry may have a particular set of beliefs about pigs. attitude systems are examples of schemata. the process of inducing behavioural change is really a comprehensive procedure in which all of the personal and external factors that are relevant to the behavioural situation.
142 Table 7.1. Cognitive–behavioural interventions in two situations. Situation Behavioural pathology Stockperson behaviour Target Fear of snakes Approach
Inappropriate human–animal interaction
Information provision Modify inappropriate cognitions Systematic desensitization Provide factual information Modify inappropriate beliefs Animal-handling skills training
acquisition of attitudes and behaviour and about the complexity of factors that directly or indirectly inﬂuence the attitude–behaviour relationship. Although cognitive–behavioural techniques were developed to deal with individuals suffering from various behavioural pathologies, for example, extreme fear of spiders or snakes, the principles also apply to non-pathological situations. As can be seen in Table 7.1, the use of cognitive–behavioural strategies appears to be entirely appropriate for use in normal situations where cognitive and behavioural change is required.
7.4 Modifying Stockperson Attitudes and Behaviour
Several studies have successfully applied cognitive–behavioural intervention techniques to improve stockperson attitudes and behaviour (Hemsworth et al., 1994a; Coleman et al., 2000; Hemsworth et al., 2002) and some of these will be described in detail in this section to illustrate the techniques and their implications in livestock production.
7.4.1 Modifying the attitudes and behaviour of stockpeople at small independent pig farms In the ﬁrst study (Hemsworth et al., 1994a), the cognitive–behavioural modiﬁcation techniques involved retraining in behavioural areas as well as changing the attitudes and beliefs of people. Because of the reciprocal relationship between the attitudes and behaviour of the stockperson, and the equally strong relationships between the stockperson’s attitude and behaviour and pig fear and reproductive performance (Hemsworth et al., 1989b), the cognitive–behavioural intervention procedure targeted both the attitudes and behaviour of stockpeople. This was achieved by aiming ﬁrst to improve the stockperson’s beliefs about pigs, particularly beliefs about handling pigs. This was done by providing stockpeople with key information on commercial pigs, such as the ease with which they can and should be handled, their sensitivity to the range of negative behaviours used by stockpeople (and their sensitivity to stressors in general), and the adverse effects of these negative behaviours on their fear of humans which, in turn, can
Changing Stockperson Attitudes and Behaviour
have negative consequences on their productivity and ease of handling. The indirect effects of negative handling on the stockperson, such as a deterioration in job satisfaction via difﬁculty in handling and closely inspecting fearful pigs, poor productivity and thus poor proﬁtability and depressed welfare in fearful pigs, were also raised with the stockpeople. In addition, the training provided stockpeople with information on the positive behaviours that can be used to reduce fear of humans. Secondly, in order to address the behavioural aspects of the intervention, stockpeople were shown video footage of the behaviour of stockpeople in commercial units and emphasis was placed on those patterns, such as a high percentage of negative behaviours, including moderately negatively behaviours, that have been shown to increase pigs’ fear of humans. Video footage of the behavioural responses of pigs to a range of stockperson behavioural patterns was also presented to assist stockpeople in recognizing and assessing fear responses in their animals. Encouraging stockpeople upon their return to the piggery to practise immediately actual handling techniques in a variety of situations was an essential part of this process. Behavioural modiﬁcation is necessary to ensure that there is a consonant change in beliefs and behaviour, so that the reciprocal relationship between these elements is maintained. In order to reinforce the information targeting improvements in both beliefs and behaviour, stockpeople were provided with written material in the form of a booklet, posters and a regular newsletter. The desired outcome of the study was to reduce the percentage of negative behaviours used by stockpeople on commercial pigs (i.e. reduce the degree of aversiveness of their behaviour towards pigs), and the following cognitive–behavioural intervention procedure, which incorporated the above principles, was used. Thirty-ﬁve commercial pig farms in Victoria and New South Wales, Australia, were selected. The farms varied in size from 75 to 300 breeding females and all breeding females were housed indoors on concrete, either in stalls or in groups during pregnancy and in farrowing crates during lactation. At each of these farms, one stockperson was predominantly responsible for conducting oestrus detection and supervising and assisting matings, and this stockperson was the subject of study at these farms. In order to study the effects of the cognitive–behaviour modiﬁcation treatment, there were premodiﬁcation and postmodiﬁcation periods at each farm consisting of a minimum of 8 and 15 months, respectively. At the commencement of the premodiﬁcation period and the termination of the postmodiﬁcation period, observations and measurements were conducted on the attitude and behaviour of the stockperson at each farm responsible for mating activities; observations were also conducted at each farm on the approach behaviour to an experimenter of recently mated gilts and sows (to assess level of fear of humans) in the standard test discussed in Section 5.4. Reproductive records for each farm were collected monthly during the two periods. At the end of the premodiﬁcation period, farms were randomly allocated, within level of fear strata, to two treatments, training and control. The training treatment involved a 1-h individual session with each stockperson in which the cognitive–behavioural intervention procedure was used. During this session, stockpeople were ﬁrst shown the evidence for a relationship between stockperson attitude, stockperson behaviour, pig behaviour and pig productivity. This part of the procedure was designed to cover the cognitive
aspects of the intervention. The evidence was derived from our on-farm studies and from the handling experiments described in Chapters 3 to 5. Graphs of the results from these studies, and the economic implications of the differences in productivity that could be attributed to stockperson behaviour, were discussed. Furthermore, the importance of minimizing negative behaviour to promote ease of movement by the pig and the inﬂuence of physical features in the environment on pig movement were outlined. Stockpeople were given an opportunity to question and discuss the evidence, and if doubts or uncertainty were expressed, the relevant parts of the evidence were reviewed. Following this information session, stockpeople were shown video footage of positive and negative behaviours displayed by stockpeople and emphasis was placed on the effect that these behaviours would have on conditioning the pig’s behaviour. This part of the procedure was designed to cover behavioural aspects of the intervention. It was emphasized that continual, even mildly negative behaviour towards the pig would tend to condition the pig to be fearful of the stockperson. An ‘inoculation’ procedure was used in which stockpeople were told that some negative behaviour might be necessary in some situations (e.g. a wary animal is reluctant to move out of a familiar area to an unfamiliar one), but that most of the negative behaviours in the industry were often avoidable and, in any event, should be greatly outnumbered by positive behaviours towards the pig. In order to reinforce the information presented in this session, stockpeople were provided with posters to place in working areas of the piggeries. Regular newsletters were also used to summarize the important points of the cognitive– behavioural intervention programme and to prompt an assessment by the stockperson as to whether or not changes in his or her behaviour and the behaviour of his or her pigs were being achieved. The control treatment involved two observers, the same two who imposed the cognitive–behavioural intervention procedure, visiting the farm for a 1-h session in which only general developments in the pig industry were discussed. Stockperson attitudes and behaviour were assessed in the same way as in our earlier studies (see Chapters 4 and 5) and the behavioural response of pigs to humans was assessed in a standard test in which the approach behaviour of the pig to a stationary experimenter in an arena was measured. Relative to the control treatment, the training treatment resulted in a greater increase in positive attitudes towards petting and talking to pigs (Table 7.2). Corresponding with this relative improvement in the attitude of stockpeople at the training farms was a signiﬁcant reduction in the percentage of tactile behaviours displayed by the stockperson that were negative in nature. These relative improvements in the attitude and behaviour of stockpeople at the training farms corresponded with a signiﬁcant relative reduction in the level of fear for humans by pigs at these farms (Table 7.2). There were increases in the time that pigs spent within 0.5 m of the experimenter and in the number of interactions with the experimenter in the standard test for pigs at the training farms relative to pigs at the control farms. Furthermore, there was a strong tendency for an increase in the number of pigs born per sow per year at the training farms relative to the control farms (a 7% increase in reproductive performance at the training farms, Table 7.2).
Changing Stockperson Attitudes and Behaviour
Table 7.2. Summary of the effects of a cognitive–behavioural intervention procedure, applied at modiﬁcation farms, and targeting the attitudes and behaviour of stockpeople in the pig industry (from Hemsworth et al., 1994b). Variable Human attitudesa Beliefs about petting and talking Beliefs about effort needed to handle Human behaviour Negative behaviours (%) Fear levelsb Time spent near experimenter(s) Number of interactions with experimenter Reproductive performance Piglets born per sow per year
89.2 89.8 55.8 15.6 1.3 22.2
102.9 92.2 38.6 21.9 2.0 23.8
score indicates positive beliefs. of humans was assessed by the time pigs spent near and number of interactions with a stationary experimenter in a standard test.
The intervention procedure used in this study was less intensive than that normally used in therapeutic environments, where a number of sessions over an extended period of time are used, and where the behavioural component would normally include actual behaviour sessions in which the person used role playing or even actual situations to learn the new behaviour patterns. Ideally, interventions in this area should be conducted in a place where opportunities for behavioural practice are available and follow-up sessions should be used. The resources available for the research presented here did not permit such a comprehensive programme. Nevertheless, despite these shortcomings, behavioural and attitudinal improvements were observed following intervention and the effects of these were reﬂected in changes in pig behaviour. This suggests that interventions of this kind are a powerful tool for improving the productivity and welfare of commercial pigs. The effects of the intervention on the reproductive performance of pigs, while in the expected direction, were not substantial in magnitude. This raises the issue of whether the results from this study provide support for the sequential model, described in Chapter 6, in which stockperson attitudes affect stockperson behaviour which, in turn, affects pig behaviour and performance. Had the results only shown an effect on stockperson attitudes and behaviour, no ﬁrm conclusions could be drawn, because such results could have been attributed to stockpeople merely conforming to the expectations of the experimenters. However, the observed reductions in the level of fear of humans by the pigs at the training farms cannot be readily explained other than by the effects of changed stockperson behaviour. This, in conjunction with the small but marked improvement in reproductive performance of pigs at the training farms (7% relative to the control farms), strongly suggest a causal link between stockperson attitudes and behaviour on the one hand and pig behaviour and performance on the other.
In addition. It was not possible to conduct this test due to the amount of time needed and the costs of setting up speciﬁc arenas at various locations. a number of reﬁnements were made to improve both the efﬁcacy of the procedure and the practicability of the procedure for training stockpeople in a formal group setting. These animals were housed in stalls and a sample of 30 pigs supervised and assisted to mate by . secondly. stockperson and pig behaviour. handling pigs and the consequences of aversive handling on the ease of handling and productivity of pigs. In this study.. which has been shown to be predictive of the above test in a commercial setting (Hemsworth et al.e. 1981b). the attitude and behaviour of all stockpeople and the behaviour of pigs assisted to mate by these stockpeople were assessed. An important component of this training procedure was a detailed series of reviews and discussions of the subject utilizing data and observations from our earlier studies. and the remaining stockpeople were subjected to a control procedure. showing examples of appropriate and inappropriate behaviours by stockpeople and the accompanying behavioural responses by pigs. This video and written material were also used for revision by the stockpeople.4.146 Chapter 7 Fear–reproduction relationships observed in the industry and the effects of handling studies on the growth and reproductive performance of pigs further support this interpretation. and pig stress and productivity. the behavioural response of pigs to humans was assessed in the standard test described in Chapter 5 in which individual pigs were introduced to a stationary experimenter. In most of our previous research.1). premodiﬁcation for all stockpeople) and then 1 month later. At the commencement of the study (i.4. This intervention procedure was conducted on half of the stockpeople 1 month after the study commenced. an attempt was made to assess the effects of the cognitive–behavioural interventions on other job-related variables as well. 2000) using cognitive–behaviour modiﬁcation techniques was conducted in a commercial piggery where large numbers of stockpeople worked together rather than on individual farms. A simpler test. The procedure used in this study was similar to that used in the ﬁrst study (Section 7. Stockperson attitudes and behaviour were assessed in the same way as had been done in our previous studies. were presented.2 Modifying the attitudes and behaviour of stockpeople at a large integrated pig farm A second study (Coleman et al. However. as before the procedure was designed to modify the beliefs of stockpeople about the sensitivity of pigs. it was designed to educate stockpeople to properly observe and handle pigs to avoid these adverse handling effects.3) was used to measure a number of job-related measures such as job satisfaction and job knowledge. was used in this study and basically involved measuring the withdrawal response of feeding gilts and sows to an experimenter approaching in a standard manner.. and emphasizing the important relationships between stockperson attitude. a booklet summarizing the procedure and specialized video footage. however. The questionnaire developed by Coleman et al. (1998) and described in the previous chapter (Section 6. First. 7.
No such effect was evident in the control group.6 17. Given that the aim of the training programme was to change stockperson behavioural beliefs. It is interesting to note that all of the attitudes that showed improvement were in the area of behaviour. for pigs supervised and assisted to mate by stockpeople in the training group to show less withdrawal to an approaching experimenter.7 12.4 70. while those for the control group became worse. These changes in observed pig . stockperson attitudes improved following the training procedure (Table 7.23 score indicates positive beliefs.1 54. Nevertheless. stockpeople had difﬁculties recording the identities of pigs they had assisted to mate.5 17.6 11. However. and are presented with the qualiﬁcation that the premodiﬁcation data are unreliable because of the small numbers of animals assisted to mate by each stockperson. there was a strong trend. Consistent with results from the previous study (Hemsworth et al. this was a desirable outcome. Furthermore. No signiﬁcant changes were observed in job-related measures although there was a tendency for stockpeople in the trained group to report increased knowledge compared with those in the control group.6 55.20 Pre12. attitudes towards working with pigs improved. Modiﬁcation group Variable Beliefs about working with pigsa Beliefs about negative handlinga Beliefs about ease of handling sows in oestrusa Percentage of stockperson negative behaviour aLow Control group Pre12. 2000). which was assessed by different experimenters from those who supervised the attitude assessment.6 45.3).94 Post11. beliefs about petting and talking to pigs improved for the trained stockpeople.3 10. also showed a decrease following the training programme in both number and percentage of negative behaviours towards pigs relative to the control group. while those for the control group actually deteriorated.1).3. targeting the attitudes and behaviour of pig stockpeople (from Coleman et al... As in the previous study. Summary of the effects of a cognitive–behavioural intervention procedure. insufﬁcient data were collected in the premodiﬁcation period to obtain reliable data from each stockperson.8 16. stockperson behaviour in the training group.Changing Stockperson Attitudes and Behaviour 147 Table 7. Because. Beliefs about handling oestrus pigs also improved in the trained group compared with the control group.25 Post13. consistent with this improvement in stockperson behaviour. 1994a) (Section 7.1 18. each stockperson were tested 3 weeks post-mating. Similarly.2 9. In the training group. the data were collated and analysed. early in the study. it is possible that changes in attitude score could reﬂect the fact that stockpeople in the training group were aware of what was required. and simply answered in a way that was consistent with the experimenters’ expectations. applied at a large commercial farm.4.
this is a very encouraging result. 2002) using similar cognitive–behavioural modiﬁcation techniques has shown similar results in the dairy industry. as in the earlier study (Hemsworth et al. one involving 29 commercial farms and the other involving 94 commercial farms. an analysis of covariance. Therefore. one stockperson was predominantly responsible for supervising and assisting mating activities at each farm. the period required to reduce fear levels in those animals experiencing high levels of fear will be considerable. cow behaviour and cow productivity. The results of this study conﬁrm that stockperson attitudes and behaviour can be improved in a large commercial farm and that short-term effects on animal behaviour can be observed. In the 12 months following the study. 7.. that examined the effects of a cognitive–behavioural intervention on stockperson attitudes and behaviour. either acute or chronic. stockperson behaviour and. In the ﬁrst experiment. This suggests that one effect of the modiﬁcation procedure was to improve long-term job satisfaction. It was not possible to monitor changes in the long term in this study. It is important to appreciate that regular handling of a predominantly positive nature is required to reduce fear responses in pigs.. 1981a). In both experiments. the group that had received training showed a 52% higher retention rate than did the stockpeople that received no intervention.. a greater period of time may be required before stress responses. consisting of a cognitive–behavioural intervention procedure designed to improve the attitude and behaviour of stockpeople towards cows. Therefore. in which no intervention was attempted. (2002) reported two experiments. because stockpeople were regularly moved to different areas of production at the commercial farm. An interesting result that emerged from this study and that was not anticipated when the study was commenced related to employee turnover. and the pressures that the unit manager would exert to produce conforming behaviour by stockpeople. perhaps months (Hemsworth et al. 1994a). stockperson attitudes. two treatments were imposed randomly: a training treatment. there was some inﬂuence on their behaviour exerted by the stockperson who was involved in mating the gilts and sows. in those highly fearful animals are reduced to the extent where reproductive performance is not limited.3 Modifying the attitudes and behaviour of stockpeople in other livestock settings Subsequent research (Hemsworth et al.4. Given the peer pressure operating on individual stockpeople by work mates in the same unit. despite the fact that the gilts and sows in this large commercial farm had been exposed to many stockpeople. pig behaviour improved following the training procedure..148 Chapter 7 behaviour suggest that a genuine change in stockperson attitudes and behaviour had occurred. even though no clear changes in job satisfaction were observed just 1 month after the modiﬁcation procedure. and a control treatment. consistent with results from this previous research. using variables mea- . While changes in fear levels may be observed in the short term. to a lesser extent. 1994a). In the earlier study (Hemsworth et al. Hemsworth et al. Furthermore.
Although there was no signiﬁcant treatment effect on milk yield. However. 2002).6 4. 36% of the training farms failed to show a reduction in average ﬂight distance over the two lactations.Changing Stockperson Attitudes and Behaviour 149 Table 7.4. Similar effects were observed on both milk protein and milk fat. Variable Experiment 1 Stockperson attitudesa Beliefs about effort needed to handle Stockperson behaviour Negative behaviours (%) Forceful negative behaviours (%) Cow behaviour Flight distance (m) Cow physiology Milk cortisol (nM/l) Experiment 2 Milk yield (l/year/cow) aHigh Control farms Training farms 27.82 score indicates positive beliefs. An important difference between the ﬁrst and the second of these experiments on dairy farms was that the ﬁrst experiment used a face-to-face prototype intervention in which the experimenters delivered the training verbally. Thus. demonstrated that stockpeople that had been trained held more positive beliefs about handling cows and used a lower number and percentage of negative tactile behaviours in handling cows than did stockpeople who had not been trained (Table 7.. Further. As was the case for the pig industry.4).1 2. the training programme for the second experiment was more developed and this may account for the larger and more general improvement in milk yield that was observed for the training group.2 1. the training farms in which fear levels declined following the intervention had a signiﬁcantly higher milk yield than did the other farms. applied at commercial dairy farms. these results indicate that cognitive–behavioural interventions which successfully target the key attitudes and behaviour of stockpeople that affect cows’ fear of humans are able to improve the productivity and welfare of these animals. that it was much quieter in the milking facility and that there .0 40.5 2.6 10. indicating a lower level of fear for humans by these cows compared to those from the control farms.40 579. Summary of the effects of a cognitive–behavioural intervention procedure. One unexpected outcome was obtained anecdotally from stockpeople during debrieﬁng after the experiment had been completed.1 4.4). targeting the attitudes and behaviour of stockpeople (from Hemsworth et al. The second experiment utilized a multimedia programme that incorporated feedback from the ﬁrst experiment as well as input from the experimenters.05 550.7 80. a signiﬁcant increase was found in the milk yield of cows following the training treatment (Table 7. cows at the training farms showed a shorter ﬂight distances from humans. In the second experiment. sured during the previous lactation.6 32. A number of stockpeople who had undergone the training reported that they enjoyed milking the cattle more.
and expressed as percentage of positive behaviours per unit or animal. whereas the previous research had been performed in Australia. as part of the Sixth Framework Welfare Quality Programme. (2009b) investigated the effectiveness of a European cognitive behavioural training package tested on small dairy farms in Austria. A combined analysis was performed for the three species with stockperson as the replicate. to a greater or lesser extent. the animal’s avoidance behaviour to the approach of an unfamiliar person was measured to assess fear of humans. This short exposure to any changes in stockperson behaviour would have had limited time to produce behaviour change in the animals. Stockpeople were either allocated to training or control groups. Farms were visited twice to record stockperson attitudes towards dairy cows by means of a questionnaire and stockperson behaviour by means of behavioural observations during milking. Average scores were obtained for beliefs about animal characteristics (general attitudes) and handling situations (behavioural attitudes). Stockpeople in the training group were trained within 2 weeks of the ﬁrst visit. The period between the two visits was approximately 6–8 weeks. The time interval between the stockperson training and the assessment of animal behaviour in these studies was 4–6 weeks compared with between 3–6 months in the earlier Australian studies. dairy and poultry industries in Europe (Ruis et al. Data were analysed by a 3 (species) by 2 (treatment group) analysis of covariance with the post-training score as the dependent variable and the pretraining score as the covariate. Stockperson attitudes towards animals were determined by means of a questionnaire completed during the visits. Stockperson behaviour was assessed by means of behavioural observations during handling. The ﬁeld tests were carried out in the Netherlands (laying hens and pigs) and Austria (dairy cattle). 2010). Nevertheless.. Training farms were visited before and after the training. There was a signiﬁcant improvement in positive general attitudes and in positive behavioural attitudes towards animals for the trained group of stockpeople compared with the control group. Data for 64 stockpeople were ﬁrst standardized within each species to remove the effects of the species-speciﬁc units of measurement of each variable. and an improvement in positive handling behaviours was found in the training group. For example. Moreover. Stockpeople were randomly allocated to training or control groups and all farms were visited twice. These researchers also conducted ﬁeld trials using cognitive–behavioural training on stockpeople in the pig. the trained stockpeople showed an improvement in behavioural attitudes towards cows and towards handling cows. a unique contribution made by these ﬁeld trials is that not only were the trials conducted in Europe. Compared with control stockpeople. The authors argued that the period between the training and the second visit may have been too short to result in an effect on animal fear. One farmer who had expressed a prior aversion to milking the cows and who had previously chosen other jobs on the farm actually came to enjoy milking! There are several studies that have. The training did not signiﬁcantly affect avoidance behaviour to stockperson approach. Windschnurer et al. Finally. the percentage of positive behaviours towards animals increased signiﬁcantly in the trained group compared with the control. shown similar results in different contexts. but .150 Chapter 7 were fewer days when ‘everything seemed to go wrong’.
2007b). 2001). research-validated approaches that target both human and animal factors. There have been a number of other training approaches that are designed to either reduce stress in farm animals or modify the way that stockpeople handle animals. For example. it appears that they utilize some sound behavioural principles that have implications for animal stress and ease of handling. apart from the studies by Hemsworth et al. Grandin (2007) contends that calm cattle are easier to handle and sort than agitated. 2005) is a commercial training programme designed to improve the stockperson– animal relationship.5 Review – Modifying Stockperson Behaviour The results from the intervention studies reported in this chapter.net. 2004).Changing Stockperson Attitudes and Behaviour Table 7. It is claimed that low stress handling lowers animal stress and increases ease of animal handling (Bud Williams Stockmanship. 7. The Low Stress Stockhandling programme appears to incorporate the principles of livestock handling developed by Bud Williams in the USA under the label of ‘Low stress handling methods’ (Bud Williams Stockmanship. none of the stockperson training programmes designed to either reduce farm animal stress or modify stockperson handling are based on theory-based. fearful cattle and that the secret to low-stress cattle handling is to keep them calm. However. such as a consideration of the animal’s fear. Coleman et al.5. Aims of the Low Stress Stockhandling Programme (www. 2002). Low Stress Stockhandling (Low Stress Stockhandling. Also. 151 Low Stress Stockhandling Mission • To foster an environment of low stress interaction between people and animals • To impart knowledge that promotes a positive attitude to low stress stockhandling • To show people the economic beneﬁts of a low stress environment Meeting the needs to handle stock in a calm and conﬁdent manner in all situations • Increase productivity and make more money • Improve meat quality from your livestock • Be more effective with your time and money • Improve management and proﬁtability • Reduce cost of production • Have quiet stress-free stock and people • Learn to work through ALL situations conﬁdently the training programmes were in several languages: English and Dutch (pig and laying hen programmes) and French.lss. Cote.au/ index. (1994a. taken in conjunction with the previous research on the sequential relationship between . English and German (cattle programme). 2001. at present there are no controlled studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of these programmes or similar programmes in improving welfare or productivity outcomes for the animals.htm). The aims of this programme are described in Table 7. (2009b). exploratory and social behaviour as well as the animals’ sensory and cognitive ability (Hemsworth. (2000) and Windschnurer et al. Although there is little reference in the scientiﬁc literature to these training approaches.5.
because self-reports of this kind may be susceptible to social desirability effects and. Training stockpeople to have a sound factual knowledge base about human and animal behaviour and to clearly understand and be able to apply sound handling techniques offers an important step towards meeting this need. to limit any adverse impact of poor reading skills and to make the presentations interesting and engaging. indicate an important role for training stockpeople. Recording data on handled animals provides an independent measure of the effectiveness of the training as well as of its relevance. . In Chapter 2. It is not sufﬁcient to show that stockperson attitude and behaviour have improved following an intervention. The published intervention studies also demonstrate that such training is both practical and effective on a wide range of stockpeople working in a variety of situations. It is also important to emphasize that any evaluation of an intervention must include an assessment of the impact of the intervention on animal behaviour and productivity. the programmes include individualized feedback to participants on the basis of a questionnaire that they complete at the beginning of the training programme. Indeed. it is likely that these other industries would also beneﬁt from such training programmes. including didactic classroom situations. because trained participants know what is expected of them. All of these techniques are designed to overcome the limitations of mass communication techniques. The programmes also use multimedia techniques. we discussed at some length the need for stockpeople to be treated as professionals and to receive due recognition for the central role that they play in determining farm animal productivity and welfare. In particular. there is a strong case for introducing stockperson training courses in the livestock industries that target the attitudes and behaviour of the stockperson. stockperson behaviour. taken in conjunction with this earlier research. we will propose ways in which the research we have reviewed can be applied to industry for both the selection and training of stockpeople. Although there is substantially less information available about livestock industries other than the pig and dairy industries. Furthermore. In the next chapter. we will review the material covered in this book and look towards the future for people working in the livestock industries. including voice-overs. and the research on handling livestock in experimental settings.152 Chapter 7 stockperson attitudes. It is important to reiterate the point that cognitive–behavioural interventions are effective because they are individualized. The programmes are self-paced to accommodate stockpeople who may not be used to formal learning situations or who may not be fast learners. they may be on their ‘best behaviour’. animal behaviour and animal productivity in commercial settings.
we looked at the rights of animals – their welfare and the ethical issues associated with our use of animals in livestock production. Human–animal interactions has been the topic of this book because there is an ever-increasing body of evidence that demonstrates that these interactions may result in profound behavioural and physiological changes in the animal. Human–Livestock Interactions. Hemsworth and G. which then led to an account of human–animal interactions. This was a key place to begin the book.J. the status attached to the job and some of the issues that affect job satisfaction and job retention. Notwithstanding. training packages to improve attitudes and welfare in the pig industry are widely used. Also important is the need to optimize animal productivity and welfare and to recognize the place of the professional stockperson in the livestock industries. We then turned our attention to the welfare of farm animals. Coleman) 153 . Recent developments © CAB International 2011. such as job satisfaction. and the theory underlying this empirical research. In doing so. with consequences on the animal’s performance and welfare. these interactions may also inﬂuence the stockperson to the extent that jobrelated characteristics. with implications for the job performance and career prospects of the stockperson. Any discussion of the role of domestic animals in our society needs to take into account the rights of animals and our obligation towards them with respect to those rights. Furthermore.8 Conclusion: Current and Future Opportunities to Improve Human–Animal Interactions in Livestock Production 8. In Australia. This ﬁrst part of the book was designed to set the stage for a more detailed account of the empirical knowledge of human–animal interactions and their consequences for the livestock industries. To begin with we explored the nature of the stockperson’s job in terms of the duties that the stockperson performs.H. motivation and commitment. the translation of this evidence into agricultural practice is not widespread. may be affected.1 Introduction We began this book by identifying the critical role of the stockperson in the management of farm animals and argued that the relationship between humans and the animals under their care was fundamental to their welfare and productivity. Second Edition (P.
154 Chapter 8 in Europe and the USA may see wider use in those regions too. implies that in order to inﬂuence behaviour. We will discuss some of the barriers to uptake later in this chapter. This. However. there is an opportunity for the stockperson to inﬂuence animal productivity and welfare. the trade-offs in terms of not only costs but also effects on rural society would need to be carefully considered. health and climate. either via training stockpeople in terms of their attitudes and behaviour towards their animals and/or by selecting stockpeople on the basis of these characteristics. In this case. this option may appear attractive to the livestock industries. For example. While training is the appropriate course of action for the existing workforce. Alternatively. However. selection may be better used as a screening tool to assist in identifying the nature and extent of training that may be necessary to ensure that the recruit is suited to the role of a stockperson. As discussed in Chapter 4. to begin. welfare research has been on factors such as housing. nutrition. Understanding stockperson behaviour is a key to manipulating human– animal interactions to improve animal performance and welfare as well as the stockperson’s attitude and motivation to the job. Once this happens. may require some direct human intervention. This chapter will examine the opportunities to improve not only the stockperson’s attitude and behaviour towards his or her animals. we may wish to select stockpeople to work in the animal industries on the basis of their beliefs and thus their behaviour towards farm animals. An understanding of stockperson behaviour is necessary if we wish to inﬂuence or change stockperson behaviour. we have to expose stockpeople to information that will produce changes in their beliefs. has the potential to markedly and quickly inﬂuence animal welfare and performance. moving animals from one place to another as part of normal farm practice and introducing animals or removing animals from the farm. The ability to manipulate these human–animal interactions. Another option is to completely automate the stockperson’s functions and thus avoid the deleterious effects of adverse human–animal interactions. However. as is the case in many rural communities. the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behaviour as proposed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) and Ajzen (1985) implies that behavioural change is ultimately the result of changes in beliefs about interacting with farm animals and the outcomes resulting from these interactions. recently. selection tools may have limited utility where the pool of available recruits is also limited. With the high cost of labour in many Western countries. in turn. Automated systems for all aspects of animal husbandry may not be practicable. routine checking of health and welfare. we will summarize our current understanding of the mechanisms for training stockpeople. but also to improve the stockperson’s attitude and motivation to the job in order to improve human–animal interactions and animal performance and welfare. The clear justiﬁcation for . 8.2 The Relative Importance of the Stockperson in Farm Production The focus of production research and. uptake of such training in the other livestock industries and also the poultry industries has yet to occur.
selection procedures that include measures of personality may offer opportunities to improve farm productivity if a causal relationship between stockperson personality and farm productivity can be identiﬁed. pig and poultry industries has consistently shown that fear of humans is one of the single most important factors associated with variation between commercial farms in animal productivity (Section 6. As discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1. However. improvements in the stockperson’s attitude and behaviour towards the animals may affect these other job-related characteristics through improvements in ease of handling. animal welfare.4. It is not difﬁcult to appreciate that. this focus has often been at the expense of recognizing and investigating the role of the stockperson. the causal basis of these relationships and the opportunities to manipulate any causal relationships need to be examined further.2). the possibility of reducing or eliminating the role of the stockperson in animal production entirely. As work motivation and job commitment are inﬂuential in affecting job performance. in addition to direct effects on fear and. effects on the productivity and welfare of the animals.5). . It was emphasized that training stockpeople to have a sound factual knowledge base about human and animal behaviour. Nevertheless. but also improve his/her self-esteem. job satisfaction and work motivation. the opportunity to undergo training is likely to inﬂuence not only the skill and knowledge base of the stockperson.Conclusion 155 this research has been that paying attention to these factors will substantially improve the economics of farm production and the quality of the farm product. While these factors clearly affect farm production and. Limited research has provided some evidence for the association of personality traits of the stockperson with animal productivity. and gains in animal performance and welfare. However. they are susceptible to change. In Chapters 1 and 7. as an alternative. However. For example. an understanding of personality factors may then be useful in matching people to some types of jobs in agriculture. notwithstanding the fact that the person’s personality may inﬂuence his or her response to such attempts.2. This is the substance of the next section. Furthermore. with possible advantages in work performance and retention rates.3). offers an important step towards meeting this need. it is relevant to consider. therefore. ability to closely supervise and assist when necessary. we discussed in detail the need for stockpeople to be treated as professionals and to receive due recognition for the central role that they play in animal productivity and welfare. and to clearly understand and be able to apply handling techniques. because attitudes are learned. there is evidence in both the dairy and pig industries that certain personality traits may be associated with animal productivity. the available evidence from the broader literature certainly does suggest that certain personality attributes are associated with job performance in some kinds of jobs. in fact. there may also be opportunities to select stockpeople on the basis of their predicted work motivation and job commitment (Section 1. Research examining fear–productivity relationships in the dairy. The available recent evidence on whether personality factors operate indirectly by inﬂuencing the formation and maintenance of stockperson attitudes or whether these factors have a direct effect on other aspects of the stockperson’s job performance suggests that personality operates indirectly by helping shape a person’s attitudes. before exploring these aspects in too much detail. A good trainer should be able to take into account the idiosyncrasies of the people being trained.
signs of pacing and kicking at its belly are indicative of colic in horses.3 The Necessity of Human–Animal Interactions The necessity of human contact in livestock production systems has been reviewed by Hemsworth and Gonyou (1997). Although animal conditions. Often the diagnosis of the problem by veterinarians relies on reports from the stockperson on the behaviour of the animal. All interactions contribute to the overall relationship that animals have with humans and determine whether that relationship is positive. an animal not feeding. For example. Modern livestock production involves several levels of interaction between stockpeople and their animals. direct observation of animals often provides the ﬁrst evidence of departure from normality in animals.156 Chapter 8 8. the general public probably considers careful observation of animals under the stockperson’s care . such as auditory cues (vocalizations). such as the approach of the stockperson. automation should be utilized to assist the stockperson in monitoring animals and their conditions. automation is unlikely. it is necessary for consider the nature of human–animal interactions in livestock production in more detail. However. behavioural change can be utilized by stockpeople to identify abnormality. Because of the potential for negative interactions by the stockperson. In fact. For example. Visual and auditory interactions may also be used to move animals. One could argue that the prompt identiﬁcation of an impending problem for the animal relies heavily on the observations of the stockperson on animal behaviour. a social animal voluntarily separated from the group or an animal that is unresponsive to environmental change. For example. such as illness or stress.. a human observer is still necessary in many cases to make a decision on whether or not a video of an unusual behavioural pattern in an animal is indicative of a problem. and it is useful to use this previous discussion as a basis for a discussion on the possibility of eliminating all human– animal interactions in livestock production systems in order to eliminate the chances that these interactions may limit animal performance and welfare. To examine this question. should be encouraged. Use of video cameras is in general less effective than direct observation. automation of the tedious. and observe the ﬁne detail that is necessary to discriminate. perhaps without the stockperson entering the animals’ pen. Clearly. in the foreseeable future. such as cleaning. for example. such as ambient temperature. can be used to identify the early stages of a problem and enable a prompt response. can be remotely monitored. noxious gas levels and presence of feed and water. provision of feed and water. Many interactions are associated with regular observation of the animals and their conditions. neutral or negative. While animal movement can be quantiﬁed with sophisticated tracking systems. In particular. An essential role of stockpeople in achieving high animal performance and welfare is the careful observation of animals under their care. In the interests of animal welfare alone. and in some industries tactile interactions may be used. to completely replace the stockperson. between a lesion and a smear of dirt on the skin. Hemsworth and Gonyou (1997) have questioned the necessity for interactions between humans and animals. and thus this type of interaction often involves only visual contact between the stockperson and the animals. laborious and objectionable tasks that may decrease job satisfaction. video cameras are limited by their inability to use localized non-visual cues. etc.
such as during routine inspections.2). these visual behaviours can also be potentially fear provoking. The association of fear and pain from these husbandry procedures with humans performing them will increase the fear for humans that animals exhibit in other situations. improving product quality or reducing the possibility of injury to animals or humans. Extensively grazed animals such as beef cattle and sheep are moved between pastures as part of optimal grass management. An important opportunity to reduce fear of humans in farm animals is through regular exposure to humans in a neutral context. 8. This can be achieved by using negative behaviours. Growing pigs are generally moved from pen to pen in order to provide accommodation suitable to their stage of growth. strokes and the hand of the stockperson resting on the animal (Fig. 8. such as pats. Although some reduction in these procedures may be possible. habituation will occur over time as the animal’s fear of humans is gradually reduced by repeated exposure to humans in a neutral context (Fig. Some animals may never be restrained during their lives. While not necessarily a legal requirement. vaccinating and blood sampling. codes of practice for farm animals in many countries often state that daily observation of animals in conﬁned conditions is essential. only when necessary and by seeking opportunities to use positive behaviours. the risk of eliciting high fear of humans can be reduced by stockpeople minimizing their negative behaviours while maximizing their positive ones. and could only be eliminated if the industry is closed.1). ear tagging and dehorning. such as castration. such as a human standing stationary and near the animals. and animals are restrained for procedures that are painful. Human–animal interactions also occur in situations in which animals must be restrained and subjected to management or health procedures. It may be possible to reduce or eliminate some of these procedures. reductions in shouting and increases in talking will assist in reducing fear of humans in dairy cows. ear tagging. castration and dehorning are justiﬁed by facilitating management. milking.Conclusion 157 as an essential part of good stockmanship. such as vaccinations and blood sampling for diagnosis. Weighing. Procedures such as milking and shearing are directly related to the reason the animals are kept. when the opportunity arises. As considered earlier in the book (Chapters 3 to 6). humans inadvertently interact with animals when they inspect the animals and equipment such as feeders and drinkers in their pens. are necessary to improve the health and thus the welfare of the animals. Some sort of restraint is used for weighing. branding. In addition. it is likely that they will remain part of animal care and production for some time. and some degree of discomfort or pain is justiﬁed in the interests of the animal. but others. Furthermore. and breeding pigs may be regularly moved according to their stage of the breeding cycle. Animals in most production systems have to be moved. and extensively grazed dairy cows are moved several times a day during lactation to be milked. It is during these situations that human–animal interactions have considerable potential to inﬂuence animal performance and welfare. Although these observations do not necessarily involve contact with the animals. The effect these procedures . while others are restrained on a regular basis. The avoidance of fast speed of movement and unexpected movement or appearance by the stockperson will assist in reducing fear of humans by poultry. such as hits and slaps on dairy cattle and pigs.
.. de Passille et al. Hutson (1985) found that although the effectiveness of food rewards diminished as the severity of the handling treatment increased. rewarding sheep with barley food improved ... Rushen and colleagues (Munksgaard et al. at around the time of a stressful procedure may ameliorate the aversiveness of the procedure and reduce the chances that animals associate the punishment of the procedure with humans. may avoid dairy cows associating the procedure with the regular stockperson. Rushen et al. such as provision of a preferred feed or even positive handling. 1995. 1996d). 1995. 8.1.158 Chapter 8 Fig. studies with pigs have shown that pigs will associate the rewarding elements of feeding with humans if handlers are present at feeding (Hemsworth et al. 1996) have shown that performing an aversive treatment at a speciﬁc location. such as pats and the hand resting on the animal’s back. For example. or by either an unfamiliar or familiar operator wearing different distinctive clothing. The frequent use of positive behaviours by stockpeople. will decrease the pig’s fear of humans. have on the human–animal relationship relates both to the aversiveness of the procedure and the association by the animal of humans with that aversion. Rewarding experiences.
Further research is clearly required to understand the effects of the animal’s relationship with humans on how animals respond to stressful situations in the presence of humans because of the implications of these effects on animal welfare and ease of inspection and handling. reduce heart rate and salivary cortisol concentrations in lambs following tail docking (Tosi and Hemsworth.. subsequent ease of handling in the location in which the aversive treatment was previously imposed. Surprisingly. daily injections were not highly aversive to pigs (Hemsworth et al. such as the presence of the handler and the opportunity to closely approach and interact with the handler before and after injection. 1992).Conclusion 159 Fig. followed by the opportunity for positive behaviours. The effect of eliminating humans from such handling procedures on animal responses is well illustrated by . 2004). These data indicate that positive relationships with humans may ameliorate aversive experiences in farm animals when in the presence of humans.2. 1996b).. As Hemsworth and Gonyou (1997) have suggested. and the authors suggested that there may have been some rewarding elements for the pigs in these handling bouts. 2002).b). and reduce heart rates. 8.. there are opportunities to reduce or even eliminate human involvement in some animal management procedures that are aversive to the animal. such as talking and patting.. Examples include robotic shearing of sheep. Previous positive handling has been shown to improve ease of handling and reduce heart rates during loading of calves for transport (Lensink et al. such as a human standing stationary and near the animals. 1981) and pigs (Barton Gade et al. Fear of humans can be reduced in pigs through regular exposure to humans in a neutral context. robotic milking of cows and automated handling facilities for sheep (Syme et al.. as the animal approaches (photograph courtesy of Wageningen UR Communication Services). kicking and restless behaviour in dairy cows during rectal palpation (Waiblinger et al. 2001a.
In situations where the human contact component is highly aversive or even injurious to the animal. Although the contribution of humans to the aversiveness of these procedures is generally unknown. Research on shearing sheep also indicates the welfare implications of eliminating humans from the procedure. Another potential problem for farm animals that have been deprived of human contact is the fact that if human contact is required. those techniques which minimize injury should be identiﬁed and adopted. Surprisingly. possibly indicative of greater fear. Mears et al. 1970. Fulkerson and Jamieson. there appears to be a strong case for stockpeople to continue to interact with livestock. The cortisol response to shearing has been found to be greater than many procedures such as stop-start transport. Even if an opposing case could be mounted. (1999) found that the cortisol and β-endorphin responses to shearing were of greater magnitude and of longer duration in previously shorn ewes than in naïve sheep. 1993). 1986). perhaps in an emergency situation. 1988. this interaction will be highly fear provoking and aversive because of the unfamiliarity with the handler. In tonic immobility tests. 2008).b). While maximum heart rates of birds caught by either method were similar. the rates remained high for longer in manually caught birds than in birds caught by a specially designed machine. clearly.. jetting.. research on these procedures should be conducted to determine the effects of the component of the procedure involving human contact on the animals’ responses. suggesting that rather than habituating to shearing the sheep may have been sensitized to shearing. Fell and Shutt. procedures that eliminate human involvement or changes in the behaviour of the human should be sought. 1982. steady transport. Rushen and Congdon (1986) found that sheep developed an aversion to simulated shearing that was similar to the aversion developed to electro-immobilization (immobilizing the animal with a pulsed low-voltage electric current passed along the spine). isolation. no cost– beneﬁt analysis of eliminating the stockperson has been carried out and. Shearing appears to produce one of the most marked acute stress responses of all non-surgical husbandry procedures. several authors have proposed that zoo visitors may provide zoo animals with environmental enrichment (Hosey. One could also question whether or not humans are viewed as social partners in the environment and whether or not they provide environmental variation. Similar opportunities may exist with other management and health procedures and.160 Chapter 8 research on mechanical and manual harvesting of broiler chickens (Duncan et al. manually caught birds showed a longer response than did machine-caught birds. Indeed. in which animals learn to associate a location with a speciﬁc treatment. For example. 1990a. Using aversion learning techniques. these results indicate that the stressfulness of some procedures may be reduced by eliminating humans from the procedure or at least improving the human contact associated with the procedure. Hargreaves and Hutson. automated systems would present an impoverished environment relative to less automated systems. because the method of catching laying hens in cages affects the incidence of bird injuries (Gregory et al. shearing noise. something that may be minimal in a totally automated system if not speciﬁcally addressed. On balance. yarding and blood sampling (Kilgour and de Langen. it is unlikely that such elimination would be . given the capital cost of many alternatives. If this were the case.
Appropriate targeting requires that the key skills that a stockperson needs must be identiﬁed and training programmes developed that speciﬁcally relate to those skills. The fact that stockpeople may often come from such disadvantaged groups means that training needs to be carefully targeted and also needs to be delivered in a way that is accessible to such individuals. it usually targets management rather than stockpeople. both the key beliefs and behaviours that are inﬂuential in regulating human–animal interactions in a commercial setting offers the animal industries opportunities to improve animal performance and welfare. Certiﬁcate II. and occupational health and safety requirements. On larger farms. the next two sections deal with managing this important resource in agriculture: training and selecting stockpeople to improve human–animal interactions. Diploma or Advanced Diploma. One of the limiting factors for training stockpeople is that they usually have a restricted educational background. Certiﬁcate IV. An example of such a training programme is the one developed by the authors and described in the previous chapter (Sections 7. in an attempt to set a standard for such training. 8. 2010).Conclusion 161 practical. These competencies focus on knowledge and skills as well as language. may not handle formal training particularly well and. the owner/operator will usually perform this function.4 Training Stockpeople to Improve their Interactions with their Animals In the past.4.1 and 7. there have been limited opportunities for stockpeople to receive formal training in any aspect of their work. In Australia. the Australian National Training Information Service (NTIS) provides nationally recognized units of competency for a speciﬁc industry. Certiﬁcate III. should not be too theoretical in content and should provide content to which stockpeople can easily relate. where systematic training is employed. In general. We would suggest that this practice reﬂects the belief that the stockperson has a set of mechanical functions to perform and. However. literacy and numeracy. in some cases. for example. industry sector or enterprise (NTIS. the farm will produce well. may have literacy problems. The new stockperson is typically given a brief orientation and is then placed in the work environment where he or she is expected to learn ‘on the job’. these key human characteristics have been identiﬁed and an intervention procedure based on . Therefore in order to maximize opportunities to beneﬁt from the stockperson’s input into farm production. there have been many attempts to develop technical training courses suitable for stockpeople. Accessible delivery means that the training programme should not be too formally presented. Training stockpeople by targeting (for improvement). In the dairy and pig industries. it is usually the immediate supervisor who will oversee this process while co-workers provide day-to-day feedback. so long as these are done well.4. On smaller independent farms. This programme was speciﬁcally designed to target those attitudes and behaviours of the stockperson that had a direct effect on pig behaviour and productivity. The increasing units of competency in Australia lead to the qualiﬁcations of Certiﬁcate I.2).
is given to participants to use for reinforcement and revision at a later date. relative to their industry peers. Training packages based on the ProHand principles have been developed by the authors and colleagues in Austria. and emphasizing the important relationships between stockperson attitude. The most difﬁcult aspect of the utilization of these programmes relates to their uptake in the relevant industries. based on their responses to a built-in attitude questionnaire. A CDROM contains a detailed series of reviews and discussions on the subject of human–animal interactions. For example. The ProHand approach has been extended into a package for dairy stockpeople and. Furthermore. Despite the fact the original pig ProHand package was developed in 1996.1). The main source of material for stockpeople undergoing these programmes is an interactive computerized program. and animal stress and productivity. following recent research at abattoirs. together with a series of posters. These programmes avoid the use of didactic classroom situations and attempt to personalize the learning experience and to make it accessible to people with limited classroom skills. Much of the recent success of the programme may be a result of the introduction in Australia of a Code of Practice which requires that stockpeople should undergo formal training and/or be trained on the job within the ﬁrst 6 months of employment and that training should be conducted on a regular basis. A video of a ‘question and answer’ session is also used by the trainers in the training sessions to address the most common questions raised by stockpeople. stockperson and animal behaviour. As indicated earlier in this chapter (Section 8. . not only do stockpeople work through the programmes at their own pace. Critical advice on changing attitudes and behaviour and maintaining these changes is also provided. into packages for pig abattoir and red meat abattoir stockpeople in Australia. and a willingness by the authors to invest substantial effort in promoting the package and training trainers. but they receive personalized feedback. beef cattle and laying hen stockpeople under the label ‘Welfare Quality’. additional material includes a booklet that summarizes the key facts and recommendations (particularly on changing and maintaining attitudes and behaviour) and a video that shows examples of appropriate and inappropriate behaviours by stockpeople and the accompanying behavioural responses by farm animals. utilizing data and observations from key studies. France and the Netherlands for pig. A key feature of these CD programmes is that they provide integrated video material and a complete soundtrack so that there is not a strong emphasis on the reading skills of the intended participants. there are numerous barriers to the uptake of these kinds of training packages. Typically. Australian Pork Limited. it is only relatively recently that there has been widespread uptake in Australia and this has depended on strong support and coordination from the main pig body. there has been a progressive cultural change in the Australian pig industry which embraces the principle that good stockmanship is essential for good pig welfare. dairy cattle.162 Chapter 8 cognitive–behavioural principles has been shown to be effective in improving human–animal interactions in these livestock industries. This video and written material. The intervention procedure used as an experimental tool in the research described above was commercialized by the authors as a training package for the pig industry called ‘ProHand’ (‘Professional Handling of Pigs Program’).
These principles are: (i) management to comply with the objectives of human proﬁt. Perhaps the main barrier to the uptake of these training programmes relates to the animal welfare culture and the regulatory frameworks of the different countries. While there is a culture of duty of care towards animals emerging in the EU and a regulatory framework emerging in Australia. is based on the widely held view in many societies that the use of animals by humans is acceptable provided that such use is humane (Mellor and Littin. where livestock production is on a smaller scale and often uses different housing systems from the Australian counterparts. There is clearly a signiﬁcant need for national initiatives to promote duty of care towards farm animals and to ensure that stockpeople are well schooled in their role and responsibilities. Interestingly. that of management responsibilities reﬂecting a duty of humane care of animals. the Welfare Quality programmes were developed as a way of addressing the differences in production approaches. While technical skills and knowledge are important attributes of the work performance of stockpeople. the EU Welfare Quality programmes are strikingly similar to the Australian ProHand packages.. 2009). food retailers were the primary drivers of animal welfare standards in the USA (Mench. and (ii) management responsibilities reﬂecting a duty of humane care of animals. The rationale for this is as follows. There are EU directives for housing and transport. In relation to livestock production and speciﬁcally to stockmanship. In the EU (European Union). In the EU. there has been an unwillingness to accept the credentials of the ProHand packages without local evaluations. the main pressure for improvement in animal welfare in the USA comes from animal rights groups. The second principle. which impose mandatory standards on member countries. despite the fact that although the US pig industry is much larger than the Australian pig industry. 2004). veal calves and hens. with basically two principles applying to the management of animals in a range of animal uses. from individual pets to livestock production (Hemsworth et al.. several initiatives were passed in Florida in 2002 and Arizona in 2004 prohibiting the use of gestation stalls for sows in both states and the use of veal calf crates in Arizona. some of which were introduced in the late 1990s. In the USA. . there is a well-established regulatory framework used to set animal welfare standards. We generally recognize that the relationships that develop between humans and most domestic animals in society are inevitably unequal. there is no consistent regulatory framework in regard to animal welfare. 2008). and usually results in changes to housing or welfare audits with no obvious emphasis on stockperson training. animal productivity is a key objective and consequently stockpeople have an explicit responsibility to care for and manage their livestock to achieve efﬁcient animal performance. although. in most relevant respects it is similar. A voter referendum was passed in 2008 in California that prohibits from the 1 January 2015 the conﬁnement of pregnant sows. despite the fact that most welfare incidents that are reported in the media are a result of inappropriate behaviour by stockpeople.Conclusion 163 In other countries. Prior to these recent changes in state legislation. beneﬁts or pleasure. The increasing interest by society in animal welfare has resulted in a corresponding scrutiny of animal use. the USA for example. 2009). Implicit in this view is that stockpeople have a responsibility to handle and care for their livestock in a humane manner (Hemsworth et al.
issues which need to be considered include: ● ● ● ● ● ● Is the test designed as a pre-employment tool? Tests that speciﬁcally refer to a current job or require speciﬁc knowledge of a particular agricultural industry are clearly inappropriate for selecting stockpeople to work in an agricultural industry for the ﬁrst time. Tests used for selection purposes must be able to discriminate with acceptable accuracy those people who will perform well in the job for which they are selected from those who will not perform well. attitudes and behaviours of stockpeople towards farm animals are also important attributes. 8. whether a selection tool is used to make a decision about the employability of a person or about the areas in which an applicant may need speciﬁc training.164 Chapter 8 as shown in this book. There is a wide variety of tests that focus on personality. the use of a multimedia format to present the . but such tests may not be appropriate tools for selection.2). for identifying areas in which training might be appropriate or for characterizing the range of qualities that people in particular employment sectors might have. Is the language appropriate for stockpeople? Tests that use local vernacular or use sophisticated terms may not be appropriate for a target population from which stockpeople are likely to come. mean that many of these tests are not appropriate for the subject population involved.5 Selecting Stockpeople to Improve their Interactions with their Animals The possible beneﬁts of selecting stockpeople appropriate to work with animals were discussed in the ﬁrst chapter (Section 1. As indicated at the beginning of this chapter. How is the test presented? Given that there may be some literacy problems within the target population. What does the test measure? Care should be taken to ensure that the test measures variables that are appropriate for selection purposes. and it may be appropriate to use selection tools to assist in identifying the nature and extent of training that may be necessary to ensure that the recruit is suited to the role of a stockperson. however. vocational preference. Further. Is the answer format simple? Tests chosen for use in selecting stockpeople may not give reliable results if some people are likely to have difﬁculty in responding to questions. work motivation.6. then no one test should be unduly long. selection tools may have limited utility where the pool of available recruits is also limited. The speciﬁc needs for selecting stockpeople. etc. there are no well-validated tests for empathy towards animals and no published tests at all for stockperson attitudes and beliefs. What is the length of the test? If applicants are to complete a number of tests. However. There are many published tests that may be useful for providing employers with advice. In choosing tests for use in selection of stockpeople. A total test battery that takes more than an hour or so to ﬁll out is probably inappropriate for selecting stockpeople. there is a need to have a well-validated procedure that can be used to improve the stockperson workforce.
6. work motivation and technical knowledge and skills.Conclusion 165 tests that is somewhat similar to that used in the training programme described above may be appropriate. As described earlier in this book (Section 1. While large organizations would be able to use the selection procedures described above by utilizing their existing human resources staff.6 The Beneﬁts for Stockpeople of Working with Animals Working in intensive farming industries offers an opportunity. While other studies have suggested that personality may be relevant and that empathy may be important. or perhaps other professionals such as agricultural product companies or ﬁnance companies may provide the resource. a demand will develop for a selection procedure that can be widely used. our research using a preemployment test battery that targets those speciﬁc attitudes and behaviours as well as those generic characteristics that are predictive of work performance does have the capacity to predict the subsequent work performance of pig stockpeople. for people to obtain employment in rural areas. together with empathy. One other beneﬁt of having tools that reliably predict stockperson performance is that such tools might also be used to audit stockmanship. procedures to select people to work as stockpeople need to take into account the particular characteristics of the target population as well as those characteristics that make a person well suited to work with animals in the livestock industries. smaller operators would need to have access to appropriate people to conduct selection on their behalf. ultimately. as well as the relationships between attitudes and other job-related characteristics. . The authors’ research has shown that there are aspects of stockperson attitudes and behaviour that affect animal welfare and productivity in livestock production. There appears to be a clear opportunity for training and selection to be provided to the livestock industries by consultants. owing to the strong relationships between stockperson attitudes and behaviours and animal fear responses. 8. the ProHand training package described above is being delivered by designated training ofﬁcers in each state. Hemsworth et al. of farm production. Where people have had previous experience working in a particular industry. There is a real need to extend this research into the other livestock industries and to develop practical stockperson selection tools for the livestock industries. A similar situation exists for training stockpeople on site. In other countries. Because there is increasing recognition of the need to employ people who will be adaptable and conscientious and who will treat animals well.2). a strategy similar to this might be appropriate. our research has shown that the person’s attitude towards working with animals in that industry is a good predictor of their behaviour and. In summary. attitudes. should be the principal focus of measuring stockmanship in on-farm welfare monitoring schemes. At present the research reported here has yet to be implemented as a practical tool for industry use. these variables need to be studied further. In Australia. (2009) argued that. from a dwindling range of opportunities.
such as promoting the development of social competency and responsibility (Edney. While the better-educated youth from rural areas probably enter rural businesses or migrate to the city. there may be quite a strong motivation to succeed in jobs that require limited formal training. 8. 1992). are well recognized for children. . one can question whether most stockpeople actually dislike working with animals. Surveys have shown that most people own pets for largely emotional reasons. those from rural areas with limited educational opportunities or achievements have less choice.. which include companionship and the provision of love and affection (Leslie et al. while stockpeople may be dissatisﬁed with their jobs (English et al.3. 1992). It is Fig.. In addition. In addition to the responsibility and satisfaction derived from successfully caring for farm animals. stockpeople may also enjoy interacting with their livestock. Thus. while the potential beneﬁts.166 Chapter 8 This facilitates people remaining with friends and relatives. 1994). living in a community with which they identify and having the ﬁnancial base to live and raise a family in the district where they choose to live. it is highly likely that adults gain considerable satisfaction and enjoyment from keeping pets. Keeping pets is common in most families and.
Interviews of several hundred stockpeople in the pig and dairy industries in Australia by the authors indicate. As a result of stress responses. a clear majority of stockpeople (86% and 76% of pig and dairy stockpeople. support and a form of interest outside themselves (Edney. 8. surprisingly. respectively) enjoyed working with their animals. and stockpeople should be aware that it is important not only to make all behaviours as positive as possible. that while many expressed a dislike for various aspects of the job. If some procedures involve negative behaviours. but also to ensure that the proportion of negative behaviours is kept low. in order to inﬂuence stockperson behaviour. Regular negative interactions by stockpeople can result in the animals developing stimulus-speciﬁc fear responses to humans. Research has shown that targeting these key attitudes and behaviour can indeed improve animal productivity via reductions in fear and stress. Indeed. such as companionship and a commitment and interest. high levels of fear for humans can depress both the welfare and performance of farm animals. stockpeople have to be exposed to information that will produce changes in their beliefs about handling and interacting with animals. Rewarding experiences at the time may also alleviate the aversiveness of the situation. or compensate for the negative behaviours by additional positive interactions. such as companionship. but several avenues for improving human–animal interactions to improve animal performance and welfare exist. we may wish to select stockpeople to work in the livestock industries on the basis of their beliefs and thus their behaviour towards farm animals. it may be possible to eliminate the procedure altogether. Evidence in a number of livestock industries has shown that the stockperson’s behaviour is ultimately a consequence of his or her beliefs about handling and interacting with farm animals. such as job satisfaction. Further. The human–animal interactions may affect the stockperson to the extent that job-related characteristics. successfully caring for farm animals may provide greater rewards for people than those gained by successfully working on a production line producing inanimate objects. . 1992). and offers both responsibility and a sense of satisfaction for the health and welfare of lives other than those of themselves or their families. Tactile behaviours may be either positive or negative in nature. The human–animal relationship also has immediate and long-term implications for the stockperson.7 Conclusion Human–animal interactions can have profound effects on farm animals. accomplish the procedure mechanically and thus remove the human association. Therefore. Alternatively. it is not unreasonable to suggest that working with animals provides stockpeople with a number of beneﬁts.Conclusion 167 also considered that pet ownership provides a range of other rewards for owners. there is limited evidence that farm animals which have positive relationships with humans may show a reduced stress response in stressful situations in which humans are present. Therefore. Our knowledge of human–animal interactions is still limited.
Much has been done to improve genetics. have just begun. This. but efforts to target the stockperson. health and housing.168 Chapter 8 motivation and commitment. selection and training procedures that target the attitudes and behaviour of the stockperson offer considerable opportunity to improve animal welfare and performance. in turn. Therefore. . This is the new direction for industries in which livestock regularly interact with stockpeople. is also likely to affect the performance and welfare of the livestock. who performs such a key function. may be stimulated with implications for the job performance and career prospects of the stockperson. nutrition.
169 . Appleby. M. H. D. I.References Abbott. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54... Adams. M. (1985) Effect of early rearing experience on subsequent behavior and production of Holstein heifers. behavior and ﬁrst lactation milk yield of production of Holstein heifers. Kumkale. J.P (eds) The Handbook . Worchester.. (2005) Attitudes: introduction and scope. D.P Johnson. Heidelburg. In: Kuhl. I. C.T. Psychology Press. Norton. and Fishbein. T. (1950) The Authoritarian Personality.W.L. pp. M. D. E. Foster. of Attitudes. 64–76. and Fishbein. H. and Hughes.L. Personality and Behaviour. I. (1988) Attitudes.O.H. and . 923–929. 888–918. and Penny. pp. and Walters. B. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99.C.W. 798–844. J.W. Milton Keynes. Adorno. and Sanford. 3408–3415... Berg. S. E. Characters and Characteristics. Hughes. (1992) Effects of isolation of calves on growth. 3–19.. J. Armstrong. 145–151.J. Ajzen. 371–375. B. Arave. C.. Journal of Endocrinology 40. M. UK.. Ajzen. (1992) Poultry Production Systems.E. New York.T. (1937) Personality. Zanna. (ed. (1935) Attitudes. (1997) The effect of experience of handling pigs on willingness to move. (1968) Effect of cortisol on growth and uric acid excretion in the chick. I.C. and Larson. and Elson. B.. L.. Albright. Guise. (eds) Action-control: from Cognition to Behavior.. (2004) Poultry Behaviour and Welfare. Bøe. New Jersey. Johnson. Allport. CAB International. Andersen. (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behaviour.L.C.A. M.L.O. and Edwards. New York.. New York. C. Wallingford.. Clark University Press.. I.H.A. D. Journal of Dairy Science 68. In: Albarracin. Mickelsen. G. (2006) Positive handling in late pregnancy and the consequences for maternal behaviour and production in sows. Ajzen. B.A. Allport. pp. G. Appleby. B. J.W. S. N. Henry Holt. In: Murchison. K. Open University Press. Ajzen. Massachusetts. R. Englewood Cliffs. Springer Verlag. Frenkel-Brunswik. C.W.T. and Beckman. Levinson.M. Mench. M. Journal of Dairy Science 75. Prentice-Hall Inc. W. CAB International. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. T. Arave. UK. 11–39. J. UK.V. Albarracín.) Handbook of Social Psychology. Wallingford. Hunter. Psychological Bulletin 84. and Zanna. Germany... G.J. (1977) Attitudebehaviour relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research.
K. 23–33.H. J. M. L. Hemsworth. P (2003) Sci. P .. A. G. (ed. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology. M. References Barnett. L. physiological and production responses of laying hens. P .M. Applied Animal Ethology 9. .L. ence and its application in assessing the welfare of laying hens. L.L. S.H.D. 1–28. L. Barnett. (2001) A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. G. Hemsworth.. Hemsworth. P and Hand. Hennessy. Barrick. (1991) The big ﬁve . R. 107–114. and Winﬁeld.. Victoria. Newman. Personnel Psychology 44. P .H. McCallum. J. and Hemsworth..H.R. (1992) Fear of humans and its relationships with productivity in laying hens at commercial farms. 1328–1334...) Manipulating Pig Production IX. Veterinaria Italiana 44.. P . Behaviour 139. and Veltman. Bartov. J. McCallum. E.H. and Newman. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37. 161–164. Barton Gade. and Newman. Barnett.S. (1994) The effects of modifying the amount of human contact on the behavioural. behavioural and physiological responses. Edge.M. (1988) The effects of genotype on physiological and behavioural responses related to the welfare of pregnant pigs.H. pp. ing..H. Vol. In: Paterson. 139–146. and Hemsworth.L.P and Mount. Cronin.L. 121–131. T. In: Berkowitz. (ed.. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12.. (1989) The effect of design of tether and stall housing on the behavioural and physiological responses related to the welfare of pregnant pigs.H.B. D. Barnett. Bagozzi. Jongman.L.L..L.A. A minority of one against a unanimous majority.L. 699–710. J.H. E. Winﬁeld. Hemsworth. (1993) Behavioural responses of commercial farmed laying hens to humans: evidence of stimulus generalization. P . J. P . (1980) Effect of corticosterone and prolactin on fattening in broiler chicks. J. Barnett.. Hemsworth. R.M. Barnett.. F.L. J. P (1989) Fear ..L. Barnett. Hemsworth. . and Thornber. Barnett. Werribee. Denmark. Cronin. and Hemsworth. Cronin. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52.H.M..E. J. P .L. Hemsworth. C..P . 547–549. Australian Veterinary Journal 81. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24. Aureli.. 393–420. E.M. P . Roskilde. Barnett. and Newman. G.. and Hemsworth. British Poultry Science 30.. 273–277. E. (2002) Relationship assessment through emotional mediation. D. Newman.A. 1–12. 116–120. E.. In: Adams. E. Poultry Science 59. (1991) Effects of design of individual cage-stalls on the behavioural and physiological responses related to the welfare of pregnant pigs. I. II.G. Barnett. 1–34. and Christensen.H. (1956) Studies of independence and conformity: I. M. Danish Meat Institute. (eds) Welfare aspects of long distance transportation of animals. McCallum. John Wiley & Sons. 87–100. J. Barnett. 287–296.G.. J. Barnett. T. (1983) The effect of chronic stress on some blood parameters in the pig. pp.H.. Australasian Pig Science Association. J. . (2003) Studying stress to assess animal welfare. and Jones.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 4. T. Jensen.H.M. Asch.A. C. (1969) The theory of cognitive dissonance: a current perspective. of humans by laying hens in different tiers of a battery. British Poultry Science 33. G. 114–131. Hemsworth. P (2009) Wel. E. T. fare monitoring schemes: using research to safeguard the welfare of animals on the farm.M.A. 1–26. (2008) The place of quality assurance in managing animal welfare during long distance transport. P . Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 70.L. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20.H. C.L. Barnett. New York.P (1980) Causal Models in Market. and Schaffner. P Blaabjerg. and Hutson. 497–502. and McCallum.C.H.E. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41.170 Aronson.H. personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. J. (1992) New lairage system for slaughter pigs – effects on behaviour and quality characteristics. Australia. J. J.B. 615–624. J.
Hobson..R. and Košt’ál. P and Chupin.J.. Bodsworth. Animal Welfare 12. P (1988) Relationships between . Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77. Boivin. J. W. M. X. London.. (ed. pp. X. P . PhD thesis. Beynon. M.F. C. X. UK. (1965) Effect of cortisol on the growth of chicks.. L. D. Blecha. 479–492. (1993) Reductions in turnover. Czech Republic and Institute of Animal Biochemistry and Genetics. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20.. Tournadre.A. Marcantognini.K. 452–464. welfare and productive traits in caged White Leghorn hens.M. G. J. 149–152. H. (1981) Emotion. and Veissier. and Bouissou. G. (2000) Hand-feeding and gentling inﬂuence early-weaned lambs’ attachment responses to their stockperson. F. and absenteeism: the contribution of a pre-employment screening inventory.R. Her Majesty’s Stationery Ofﬁce. 311–328. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology 38. 89–103. M. Bouissou. M. and Le Neindre. Boivin. Brulé. Boivin. 109–116.T. G. Academy of Management Review 7. Behavioural Processes 43. (1997) The inﬂuence of handling on the behaviour and productivity of lactating heifers. fear.. (1991) Analysis of stockmanship. J.J. Bredbacka. Smith. and Coleman. Hemsworth. and Le Neindre. (2001) Child–companion animal attachment bonds in single and two-parent families. UK. Ewer.) The Oxford Companion to Animal Behaviour. Blake. G. and Garcia. UK.H. I. Oxford.. and Eksebo (eds) Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology in Farm Animals. F. and Dennis.. 402–410. F. and Veissier.W. The University of Aberdeen.B. G. New York. Zeeb. R. K. M. Slovak Academy of Sciences. Wiley. accidents. . Nowak. G. J.. I.J. 171 Maternal presence limits the effects of feeding and gentling on the lambs’ socialisation to the stockperson. P . A. C.J. R. 74–89. Godet. Brambell.References Bellamy.S. Tournadre. 560–569. (1965) Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Husbandry Systems. (1988) Effects of early handling on heifers’ subsequent reactivity to humans and to unfamiliar situations. A. In: Unshelm. (1996) Studies on the inﬂuence of human characteristics and training on stockperson work performance and farm animal behaviour. Fear reactions of domestic sheep confronted with either a human or a human-like model. In: McFarland. A. . N. X. (1995) . and Cohen. R. (2000) Immune system response to stress.F and Vandenheede. L.. Prague. L.L.. Borofsky. Boissy. Breuer. (2001) The presence of the dam affects the efﬁciency of gentling and feeding on the early establishment of the stockperson–lamb relationship. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32. and Moberg. Bentler..A. Research Institute of Animal Production. Le Neindre.M. Brehm. pp. (2007) Attitudes of farmers towards Limousin cattle and their handling. Boissy. C. (1962) Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance.. W. A..W. Thorpe. M. Journal of Animal Science 78. and Winship.. 111–122.. Blumberg. Nowak. J.R. Wallingford. General Comparative Endocrinology 5. Pitchforth.. D.M. Psychological Review 86. X. (1943) Development of stereotypes concerning the Negro.. R. and Pringle. Barbour. H. P and Speckart.H. X. 81–92. Animal Welfare 16. Lensink. (1979) Models of .. CAB International. (1992) Establishment of cattle–human relationships. Boivin. Boivin. (eds) Biology of Animal Stress. D. pp. UK. P (2002) . Henry. M. R.H. Pig Veterinary Journal 26.M.D. W. and Leonard. K. H. 216–223. Beveridge. Anthrozooz 14.. J. P and Coleman. attitude–behavior relations. Slovakia. A. P . and Smith. Boulesteix.. (2003) Stockmanship and farm animal welfare. Tallet.. In: Mench. Barnett. W.. (eds) Proceedings of the 31st International Congress of the International .. (1982) The missing opportunity in organisational research: some implications for a theory of work performance. In: Hemsworth. 67–77. T. 525–531. 325–335. 147–151. Van Putten. Spinka. Oxford University Press. Boivin. A. Journal of Clinical Psychology 49. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72. 879–884. Bolles. 259–273.
H.M. (2000) Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Berston. Carless. 1256–1258.E. D. W. London..O.M. Academic Press. (1979) The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Chapman and Hall. pp. 335–340. Hemsworth. Ann Arbor.L. K. European Journal of Social Psychology 14. N.W. Cammann. British Veterinary Journal 142.. L. R. (2003) The effect of positive or negative handling on the behavioural responses of nonlactating heifers. Available at: www. Michigan. (1991) Pets and the family. (1997) Relationship between temperament. New York. (1993) The psychophysiology of emotion. In: Lewis. (1974) Effect of blood sampling by cardiac puncture on subsequent body weight of broilers and S. 939–949. D. I. S. The University of Michigan.W. D. J. (2000) Genetic and environmental factors affecting temperament of zebu and zebu-derived beef References cattle grazing at pasture in the tropics. Budd. Hemsworth.B. Journal of Dairy Research 60. 3–22. Guildford Press. and Klesh.stockmanship. Bruckmaier. M.L. I. P and Coleman. H.B. and Hagen.M. S. ISAE.M.. Bruckmaier. (1998) Oxytocin release and milk removal in ruminants. 356–372. Cannon. and Henderson. G. 119–142. R. Burrow. and Bernon.A. liveweights and commercial carcass traits of Bos indicus crossbreds. (1993) Stress and Animal Welfare. 524–526. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84. and Haviland. Barnett. (1993) Milk removal in familiar and unfamiliar surroundings: concentrations of oxytocin. 155–162. 449–456. (1914) The emergency function of the adrenal medulla in pain and the major emotions. J. Broom. Holistic Nursing Practice 5. J.. pp. C. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66. McCain. McGraw-Hill.R. (1991) Meaning and measurement of turnover: comparison of alternative measures and recommendations for research.. α-adrenergic receptor stimulation and in unfamiliar surroundings. White Leghorn replacement pullets. and Dillion.. A. Burrow. (1997) Inhibition of milk ejection in cows by oxytocin receptor blockade. Hay. gov (accessed 10 July 2009).W. M.J. Journal of Dairy Research 64. Available at: www. C. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 51. and Blum. G. London...) Psychology: a Study of a Science. North. 94–172.172 Society for Applied Ethology.A. D.G.T. S.. R. Hemsworth.L. and Corbet. Fichmann. J. A. J. 58–63. D. Campbell. M. Jenkins. Bud Williams Stockmanship (2001) Teaching low stress livestock handling methods. Cacioppo.C. R.H. 315–325. D. (eds) Handbook of Emotions. .. and Blum. Journal of Dairy Science 81. (2007) Selecting unskilled and semi-skilled blue-collar workers: the criterion-related validity of the PDI-Employment Inventory. Cain.M.. 199–212. 1–29.M. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 15. (ed. 1. Prague. P .ca.. K. M. and Johnson. Klein.com (accessed 29 April 2009). Fewings-Hall.. O. prolactin. J. Wellnitz.. Chester Jones. Quarterly Review of Biology 54.E. (1963) Social attitudes and other acquired behavioural dispositions. Matthews. Buckland.H. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 37. and Hatﬁeld. E. Czech Republic.. K. Chlopan. D. R.M. M. (1984) Understanding seat-belt use: A test of Bentler and Speckart’s extension of the ‘theory of reasoned action’.M...J. R. B. (1985) Empathy: review of . American Journal of Physiology 33. Bruckmaier.W. P and Coleman. 407–411. (1976) General. M. Carbonell. Cabanac. G.T.D. . Vol. and Spencer.sos. and Coleman. Hall. Poultry Science 53.J. D. J. (1986) Indicators of poor welfare. Breuer. Comparative and Clinical Endocrinology of the Adrenal Cortex. 69–78. M. G. R. In: Koch. California Secretary of State (2007) Information for voters.J.. Goldrosen. J. New York. 273–288. cortisol and β-endorphin. Breuer.J. and Blum. Campion.J. Broom. Schams. (1979) Sensory pleasure. Journal of Applied Psychology 76.
74–82. S.J. A Powerful Tool for Grazing Lands Management. (1994) Opportunities for whole grain feeding.. and Funder. 26–37. (2010) Educating the public: information or persuasion? Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 37. P . G. G. (2004) Personnel management in livestock industries. . OIE Technical Series (World Organisation for Animal Health) 10..S.H. Dantzer. 224–231. 173 Costa. Boublik. M. P . P and Hay. T. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 82. Chusmir. R. Odessa. L. Idaho. G. Paris. Hemsworth. B. Dawkins. UK. Iowa. British Poultry Science 41. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 21.References available measures. . J. Danbury.A. Hemsworth. (1990) Personnel management and staff training. (1988) The effects of neonatal social isolation on the behaviour and endocrine function of Holstein calves. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Vol.P (1993) The human–animal bond as .B. McGregor. 30. pp. Cransberg. Coleman. (1976) Towards an objective method of assessing welfare in domestic fowl. 6–18. (1992) NEO PI-R. and Tilbrook. K. Canberra. P .E.H. Applied Animal Ethology 2. 272–279. P (1983) Stress in . Pig Production in Australia. G. Cummings. R. (1988) Les Emotions.. G. 293–306. Cote. (2008) Public perceptions of animal pain and animal welfare. J. In: Proceedings of the Ninth European Poultry Conference. 219–222. and Coleman. M. (1980) Animal Suffering: the Science of Animal Welfare. Animal Behaviour 31. and Albright. pp. Collection Que Sais-je? Presse Universitaires de France. and Mormède. R. M. Dawkins.H. . R.L.P . 1195–1205.H.V.C..L. (2000) Human factors affecting the behaviour and productivity of commercial broiler chickens.H. G. Veterinary Record 146. Dawkins. 1034–1046. A. pp. Cleary. Coleman. M. A. and Rollin. Coleman.J. Cox.J. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48. M. World Poultry Science Association. (2000) Self-selection of the analgesic drug carprofen by lame broiler chickens. and Lloyd. Florida. In: Gardner.H. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58.. Coleman. Australian Pig Research Council.. J. Dantzer. G.J. (2001) Selection of stockpeople to improve productivity.J.T. Glasgow. Coleman.. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66. In: Benson. Dawkins.J. and Cox. (1982) Job commitment and the organisational woman. 284–291. G. attitudes and observed behaviours of abattoir personnel in the pig industry.A. Weeks. Dawkins. (eds) Stress and Reproduction. M. P and McCrae. (eds) Personnel Management and Record Keeping. (2004) Stockmanship. New York. 595–602. Academy of Management Review 7. Fourth Industrial and Organisational Psychology Conference. and the Butte Soil and Water Conservation District. Creel... Hemsworth.J... 63–75. Barnett. 189–200. Raven Press. I.A. L. (1998) Predicting stockperson behaviour towards pigs from attitudinal and jobrelated variables and empathy. Hemsworth.R. UK Branch.J. 383–387. Psychological Assessment Resources Inc. farm animals: a need for reevaluation. Chapman and Hall. Australian Capital Territory. Zoology 106. and Chambers. 245–254. New South Wales. J. (1992) Stress and reproduction in farm animals. J. C. Journal of Animal Science 57.J. Hay. (2003) The relationship between beliefs.J. M.167–181. S. (2000) Modifying stockperson attitudes and behaviour towards pigs at a large commercial farm. (1977) Do hens suffer in battery cages? Environmental preferences and welfare.J. Sydney. P . New York.H. 239–251. Coleman. Blackwell Publishing. S. 635–653. and Dowling. J. Coleman.W. Animal Behaviour 25. Clarke. p. Serono Symposium Publications. In: Sheppard. Hemsworth. Arco. M. 11–20.E. P . G. pp.C. G. J.H. Ames. Clinical Nursing Research 2. 86.. a correlate of family functioning. Boyce. 307–311.R. (1983) Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of animal needs. R.. M. Professional Manual. (2003) Behaviour as a tool in the assessment of animal welfare.C. (eds) The Well-Being of Farm Animals: Challenges and Solutions. Dunkin.
UK. and Balfour.A.. and Petherick. Australia. L. G. 95–101. Segundo..A.J. D. H. pp. Blackwell Publishing.. Special Eurobarometer 270/Wave 66. T.E.J. H.H. UK. European Commission (2007) Attitudes of EU Citizens towards Animal Welfare. B. Cambridge University Press.M. J. of stress: targets for stress and priorities of nutrient use. CAB International. 4–10.S. Spoodler. H.A. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 9. 193–209.C. and Thompson. pp. A.O. (1992) Stockmanship: Improving the Care of the Pig and Other Livestock.1. UK. Dewsbury. A. P Burgess.E. (1992) Interactions. (1992) Companion animals and human health. S. pp.C.J. D. I.. Echabe. (2006) Through animal eyes: what behaviour tells us. pp. Kettlewell. pp. and Fraser. 197–200. Filiov. Day. Eysenck. and Salgado.. K. R. and Rollin. do C. and bonds: the conceptual basis for scientist–animal relations. 181–189. Klasing. UK. Elsasser. C. Slee.J. N. Ames. G. (eds) Biology of Animal Stress. Rushen. Chamberlain.A.H. 261–274. In: Appleby. European Journal of Social Psychology 18. Cambridge. 285–288. (eds) The Inevitable Bond – Examining Scientist– Animal Interactions. In: Davis. Victorian Institute of Animal Science. S. In: Davis.J. Victoria. (1996) The current state of empathy research.P and Garate. (2003) The separate and interactive effects of handling and environmental enrichment on the behaviour and welfare of growing pigs. D. and Hughes. Journal of Animal Science 74. I. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.H. Testing Ajzen and Fishbein’s attitude model: the prediction on voting. 177–192. Pig Research & Development Corporation Research Report (DAV91P). F (2000) The metabolic consequences .L. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 19. Florida. de Passille.. J. (1992) Studies of rodent– human interactions in animal psychology. A. (2004) A concept of welfare based on feelings. Ladewig. A. and Chaiken.174 Dawkins. Edney.. (eds) The Well-Being of Farm Animals: Challenges and Solutions. M. I. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) (2005) Welfare Aspects of Various Systems for Keeping Laying Hens. Journal of Counseling Psychology 43. (1996) Dairy calves’ discrimination of people based on previous handling. I. Edwards. (1988) . References Duncan. J. A. Duncan. Victoria. (1986) Com. Orlando. D. 109–114. G. G. The University of Melbourne.V. and . J. Iowa. and Edwards.. Rovir. Wallingford. Australia. and Hetts. Burfoot. Werribee. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92. De Alencar.. (1994) Improving Meat Quality through Improved Pre-slaughter Management. Veterinary Record 130. J.M. P and Carlisle.B. J. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75. de Passille. and Moberg. parison of the stressfulness of harvesting broiler chickens by machine and by hand.C. (2007) Effects of labor motivation in poultry production. Cambridge. J. Eldridge. Duncan. 77–110. and Hill. (2005) Can we measure human–animal interactions in on-farm animal welfare assessment? Some unresolved issues. S. (1997) Understanding animal welfare. Ipswich. Dunne. and Rushen. Duan. (eds) The Inevitable Bond – Examining Scientist– Animal Interactions. EFSA-Q-2003–92. (2009) The human–animal relationship in the laying hen.J. and Balfour.T. 213–217.L.. 6–26. 969–974.. PhD thesis.E. H. J. (1978) The interpretation of preference tests in animal behaviour. Berry.M.E.A.S.H.A. Duncan. A. Annex to The EFSA Journal 197. D. Eagly.A. relationships. 19–31.M. L. In: Mench. 1–28. A. Wallingford. British Poultry Science 27. A. (1991) The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare.. I. Nääs. B. In: Benson. (1966) Personality and experimental psychology..H. (eds) Animal Welfare. 1–23. CAB International. and Petherick.H.. Journal of Animal Science 69. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100. I. Cambridge University Press. Duncan. . Applied Animal Ethology 4. H. A. H. C. Farming Press Books. C. G.Q.. M.J. 5017–5022.J. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes.D. English. and Knowles. P .B.D. M.A. Gontijo. Estep. 27–43. UK.H.
J. Behaviour Genetics 11. I.B. J. Grandin.M. In: Appleby. Wallingford. Chichester. (2008) Understanding Animal Welfare: the Science in its Cultural Context. N. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance..E. 215–222. Massachusetts. Fordyce. 127–129. 269–278. Cambridge. and Ajzen. In: Grandin. R..M. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 70. 186–189. 33–52. M. T. (1993) Effect of catching method and lighting intensity on the prevalence of broken bones and on the ease of handling of end of lay hens.M.A. 433–443. D. (ed. 2nd edn.. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 1. Polo Alto. H.A. H.C. Journal of Animal Science 76. I. (1998) ‘Pleasures’.. S. Jr (1970) Aggression and timidity: responses to novelty in feral Norway rats. S.. I. (1959) Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.F. Wallingford. N. Fraser. Kappers.) Livestock Handling and Transport.R. A.. (1988) Cattle temperaments in extensive beef herds in Northern Queensland. Curtis. D.R. Psychological Review 81. Oxon. and Carlsmith.C. and Manning. Grandin. Hemsworth.. B. Fraser. Cambridge University Press.A. and Matthews. Fishbein. (2007) Behavioural principles of handling cattle and other grazing animals under extensive conditions. Gregory.C. (1988) Salivary cortisol and behavioural indicators of stress in sheep.L. and Taylor.. FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council) (1993) Second Report on Priorities for Research and Development in Farm Animal Welfare. Galef. Fell. Shorthose. CAB International. (1993) Behavioural principles of cattle handling under extensive conditions. Journal of Animal Science 65 (Suppl. Veterinary Record 132. J. Wallingford.M. Wythes. T. 223–226.J. CAB International. W. and Hughes.K. Festinger. D. UK. 383–396. 2. and Wiegant.H. Stanford University Press. D.G. T. Wallingford.. UK. Journal Abnormal and Social Psychology 58. (1998) Effects of regular moving and handling on the behavioural and physiological responses of pigs to preslaughter treatment and consequences for subsequent meat quality. 175 Fulkerson. P (1979) Adaptation .R. UK. Animal Production in Australia 17. Fraser. Festinger. B. P and Barnett.A. (1979) Stressor effects of handling on the immature fowl. California. W. 2080–2085. pp. J.M.. (1987) The Psychology of Fear and Stress. Blokhuis. J. 159–174.W. L. D. Fraser. 43–57. In: Grandin. CAB International.J. and Jamieson. L. UK. 370–381. Gray. (1981) Bidirectional sectional for open-ﬁeld activity in young chicks.B. 1).J. T.. M. A. 203–210.R. Alvey. (1974) Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. G.References Faure.H. 230 (abstract). L. D.W. J. 689–693. (2003) Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Wilkins. WileyBlackwell. and Duncan. ‘pains’ and animal welfare: toward a natural history of affect.J. and Siegel. L. B. . Underwood. Fraser. and Shutt. Grandin. (ed. Effect of temperament on carcass and meat quality. and Shepherd. Research in Veterinary Science 26. Gonyou. A. (1986) Effects of frequent interactions with humans on growing pigs. 59–74. cortisol release in sheep following administration of synthetic ACTH or imposition of various stressor agents. West Sussex. of chickens to their handlers and . D. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16. (1990) Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare. pp. 44–64.A.O. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 28. Animal Welfare 7. Lambooij. 3rd edn.G.A. (eds) Animal Welfare. CAB International. V. T. L. mingling and driving reduce excitability in pigs. Freeman. UK. Geverink.A. P (1982) Pattern of . van de Burgwal. E. W. T. and Tucker.M. London. Australian Journal of Biological Science 35. 135–143. D. Animal Welfare 12. (1987) Toys. (1997) Preference and motivation testing. Gross. (1980) Livestock behavior as related to handling facilities design. pp.) Livestock Handling and Transport. and Broom. Grandin.
and Lightman.B. (1992) Stress and the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis: acute. Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of Australian Animal Breed Genetics 1. Wild Animals in Captivity. 972–979.) The Veterinary Clinics of North America. and Hansen.L.H. 327–339. (2007b) Behavioural principles of pig handling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30. and Barnett. In: Grandin. CAB International. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35. R. (1979) Development of a temperament or handling difﬁculty score for cattle.B.S. Hargreaves.H.. (ed. Australian Veterinary Journal 85.L. effects of early contact with humans on the subsequent level of fear of humans by pigs. J. P . Hormones and Behavior 15. A. (1992) The . and Siegel. antibody response to RBC antigens. Hemsworth.) Livestock Handling and Transport. Hargreaves.) Livestock Handling and Transport. H. 255–274. In: Price. Harrison. Gross. J. 83–90. A.176 experimental results. M.. Wallingford. Hargreaves. In: Smulders. and Siegel. and Siegel. 3. Wallingford. 91–101. 164–166. Hemsworth. Avian Diseases 23. plasma cortisol and haematocrit of sheep during a shearing procedure. B.D. H. Dover Publications Inc.H. W. Wageningen. growth and corticosteroids. Philadelphia. p-ending and wool removal to the stress response to shearing. Brand. W. and Gonyou. Hemsworth. Hemsworth. Saunders. and Siegel.D. UK. (1997) Human contact. in pig handling. P (1981) Socializa. Wageningen Academic Publishers. In: Hediger.O.H. Food Animal Practice. T. pp.H.H.S. and Hutson.L. P and Barnett. Welfare of Production Animals: Assessment and Management of Risks. 103–113. Hemsworth. J. 214–227. (1990c) The effect of gentling on heart rate. CAB International. pp.. Hearnshaw. Avian Diseases 24.H. and Algers. P (2000) Behavioural principles . W. feed efﬁciency and response to antigen in chickens. (2009) Animal welfare and management.H.B. In: Appleby.M. References Hemsworth. G. Hemsworth. P and Barnett. E. T. and Coleman. (ed. chronic and immunological activation. W. G. 339–356. P . pp. UK. P . In: Grandin. (eds) Animal Welfare. J. (1983) Evaluation of the heterophil/lymphocyte ratio as a measure of stress in chickens. (1964) The animal’s relationship with man.B.L. ﬂight distance and aversion of sheep to a handling procedure. 549–579.D. J. 205–305. P . G. (1991) The . feed efﬁciency and response to fasting.L.C. (1990b) An evaluation of the contribution of isolation. effects of aversively handling pigs either individually or in groups on their behaviour.L. 137–139. (1964) Animal Machines. 3rd edn. Volume 5. and Barnett. P . Hemsworth. P . 708–714. Harbuz. S. P .H. B. Barnett. Hediger. P (1982) Inﬂuences . (eds) Food Safety Assurance and Veterinary Public Health.J. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26. 2010–2012.H. Barlow. A. A. (1981a) The inﬂuence of handling by humans on the behaviour. Gross. pp.. Vol. P .B. Journal of Endocrinology 134. and Hutson.O. British Poultry Science 30.L. growth and corticosteroids in the juvenile female pig. productivity and cage position of laying hens. Avian Disease 27. UK. H. Wallingford. Gross. G. New York. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26.L. Gross. pp. American Journal of Veterinary Research 43. 133–147. 396–403.B. early environmental stresses on chicken body weight. and Hughes. The Netherlands. of sequences of environmental factors on the responses of chickens to fasting and to Staphylococcus aureus infection.B. Hemsworth. M. Vincent Stuart Ltd. (ed. tion as a factor in resistance to infection. London. (1981b) The behavioural response of sows .H. and Want. 61–72.L. American Journal of Veterinary Research 43. 505–518. 243–252. W.J. (2007a) Ethical stockmanship. Hemsworth. P (1980) Effects of . R. H. (1990a) Changes in heart rate.B. (1987) Human–animal interactions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26. (1989) Relationships between fear of humans. P . 194–200. H.W. G. Hemsworth. C. and Willems. F. CAB International. and Hutson.
L. J. 129–142..H.B... Hemsworth. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22. P . and Coleman. Cox. G.L.. J. Coleman. P . Coleman. Hemsworth.C. G.C.L. and Campbell. Research Report on Chicken Meat Research & Development Council Project. J. and Hansen. P . J. Research Report on Dairy Research and Development Council Project. Livestock Production Science 8. and Hansen.H. Hemsworth. Hemsworth.M. Barnett.L.. C. (1986c) The inﬂuence of handling by humans on the behaviour....H.H. (1996d) Conditioned approach avoidance responses to humans: the ability of pigs to associate feeding and aversive social experiences in the presence of humans with humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17. Productivity and Welfare of Commercial Dairy Cows. P . Attwood. P . G. Cransberg.L. 101–114. H. P . 45–54. and Matthews. Hemsworth. R. (1987) The inﬂuence of inconsistent handling on the behaviour.J.. 33–51. Barnett. (1996c) Behavioural responses of domestic pigs and cattle to humans and novel stimuli. pigs: the behavioural response of pigs to speciﬁc human signals.. G.W. G. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50. G. Barnett.L. P .. M. L.J. C.. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15.J. J. E. Hemsworth. Verge. Coleman.. C. A. Hemsworth. 245–252.L. G. Cox. 71–82. and Hansen.H. P . 313–326. tors and the Productivity and Welfare of Commercial Broiler Chickens. Hemsworth. Barnett.. P and Barnett. and Bogward. 55–63. J. 177 Hemsworth. Barnett. Barnett.J..L. (1994a) Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpeople towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs.. Hemsworth. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49.L. Barnett. V.H. Coleman. P . R. 389–401. P . (1986b) The inﬂuence of early contact with humans on subsequent behavioural response of pigs to humans. and Barnett. P . C. Hemsworth. Barnett. Australia. J.J. Hemsworth. Hemsworth. G.. P .H. Barnett. and Barnett. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23.. (1995) An Investigation of the Relationships Between Handling and Human Contact and the Milking Behaviour.H.H. Hemsworth.W.L.H. C. R. P (1986a) Human communication with . (1994c) Behavioural responses of humans and the productivity of commercial broiler chickens. J. Coleman.. Cronin.. 303–314... 67–74.L.. J.H. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40.J. Animal Welfare 2. Price. (1999) A note on the relationship between the behavioural response of lactating sows to humans and the survival of their piglets. Tilbrook. and Dzuik. and Gonyou. G. and Coleman.H. H. P . Pedersen. (1989b) A study of the relationships between the attitudinal and behavioural proﬁles of stockpeople and the level of fear of humans and the reproductive performance of commercial pigs.J. J.H. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15. (1994b) Stimulus generalisation: the inability of pigs to discriminate between humans on the basis of their previous handling experience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65.L. growth and corticosteroids of young pigs. 43–56. M. Breuer.H. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 50. 349–362.H. and Coleman. and Jones. Australia. J.R. Hansen. Coleman.O. and Hansen... J. 301–314. . Hemsworth. J.H. Attwood. Hemsworth. P . (1996b) A study of the relative aversiveness of a new daily injection procedure for pigs.H. G. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39.G. (1989a) The effects of handling by humans at calving and during milking on the behaviour and milk cortisol concentrations of primiparous dairy cows. Victoria. Victoria.J. (1996a) Human Fac. P . K. reproduction and corticosteroids of male and female pigs. Gonyou. 43–52.C.. P .References to the presence of human beings and its relation to productivity. (1993) The human–animal relationship in agriculture and its consequences for the animal. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15.
178 Hemsworth, P .H., Coleman, G.J., Barnett, J.L. and Borg, S. (2000) Relationships between human–animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 78, 2821–2831. Hemsworth, P .H., Coleman, G.J., Barnett, J.L., Borg, S. and Dowling, S. (2002) The effects of cognitive behavioral intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80, 68–78. Hemsworth, P .H., Barnett, J.L., Rickard, M. and Coleman, G.J. (2007) Australia’s research and development capacity in animal welfare. Farm Policy Journal 4 (4, November Quarter 2007), 23–31. Hemsworth, P .H., Rice, M., Calleja, L., Karlen, G.A., Coleman, G.J. and Barnett, J.L. (2008) The relationships between handling prior to slaughter and stress in sheep and cattle at abattoirs. In: Boyle, L., O’Connell, N. and Hanlon, A. (eds) Proceedings of the 42nd International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Dublin, Ireland. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, p. 75 (abstract). Hemsworth, P .H., Barnett, J.L. and Coleman, G.J. (2009) The integration of human-animal relations into animal welfare monitoring schemes. Animal Welfare 18, 335–345. Hill, J.D., McGlone, J.J., Fullwood, S.D. and Miller, M.F. (1998) Environmental enrichment inﬂuences on pig behaviour, performance and meat quality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57, 51–68. Hinde, R.A. (1970) Behaviour: a Synthesis of Ethology and Comparative Psychology. McGraw-Hill Kogakusha Ltd, Tokyo, Japan. Hinde, R.A. (1976) Interactions, relationships and social structure. Man 11, 11–17. Hogan, J.A. (2008) Motivation. In: Bolhuis, J.J. and Giraldeau, L.-C. (eds) The Behaviour of Animals: Mechanisms, Function and Evolution. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts, pp. 41–70. Hosey, G.T. (2008) A preliminary model of human–animal relationships in the zoo. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109, 105–127.
References Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L. and Kelley, H.H. (1953) Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Hughes, B.O. (1975) Spatial preference in the domestic fowl. British Veterinary Journal 131, 560–564. Hughes, B.O. (1976) Preference decisions of domestic hens for wire or litter ﬂoors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2, 155–165. Hughes, B.O. and Black, A.J. (1973) The preference of domestic hens for different types of battery cage ﬂoor. British Journal of Poultry Science 14, 615–619. Hughes, B.O. and Black, A.J. (1976) The inﬂuence of handling on egg production, egg shell quality and avoidance behaviour of hens. British Poultry Science 17, 135–144. Hutson, G.D. (1981) Sheep movement on slated ﬂoors. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 21, 474–479. Hutson, G.D. (1982) ‘Flight distance’ in Merino Sheep. Animal Production 35, 231–235. Hutson, G.D. (1984) Animal welfare and consumer demand theory: are preference tests a luxury we can’t afford? Animal Behaviour 32, 1260–1261. Hutson, G.D. (1985) The inﬂuence of barley food rewards on sheep movement through a handling system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14, 263–273. Ivanov, Yu.K. and Patrushev, V.D. (1976) The impact of labor conditions on work satisfaction of agricultural workers. SotisiologicheskieIssledovaniya 3 (Jul–Sep), 60–70. Jago, J.G., Krohn, C.C. and Matthews, L.R. (1999) The inﬂuence of feeding and handling on the development of the human– animal interactions in young cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 64, 137–151. Janis, I.L. and Hovland, C.I. (1959) An overview of persuasibility research. In: Hovland, C.I. and Hanis, I.L. (eds) Personality and Persuasibility. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, pp. 1–28. Jewell, L.N. and Siegall, M. (1990) Contemporary Industrial/Organizational Psychology, 2nd edn. West Publishing, St Paul, Minnesota.
References Johns, G. (1987) The great escape: the whys and wherefores of absenteeism add up to a $30 billion question for American business. Psychology Today 21, 30–33. Jones, R.B. (1983) Fear responses in domestic chicks as a function of the social environment. Behavioural Processes 8, 309–325. Jones, R.B. (1987) Fear and fear responses: a hypothetical consideration. Medical Science Research 15, 1287–1290. Jones, R.B. (1993) Reduction of the domestic chick’s fear of humans by regular handling and related treatments. Animal Behaviour 46, 991–998. Jones, R.B. (1994) Regular handling and the domestic chick’s fear of human beings: generalisation of response. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42, 129–143. Jones, R.B. and Faure, J.M. (1981) The effects of regular handling on fear responses in the domestic chick. Behavioural Processes 6, 135–143. Jones, R.B. and Hughes, B.O. (1981) Effects of regular handling on growth in male and female chicks of broiler and layer strains. British Poultry Science 22, 461–465. Jones, R.B. and Waddington, D. (1992) Modiﬁcation of fear in domestic chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus via regular handling and early environmental enrichment. Animal Behaviour 43, 1021–1033. Jones, R.B. and Waddington, D. (1993) Attenuation of the domestics chick’s fear of human beings via regular handling: in search of a sensitive period. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36, 185–195. Jones, R.B., Duncan, I.J.H. and Hughes, B.O. (1981) The assessment of fear in domestic hens exposed to a looming human stimulus. Behavioural Processes 6, 121–133. Jones, R.B., Mills, A.D. and Faure, J.M. (1991) Genetic and experimental manipulation of fear-related behaviour in Japanese quail chicks (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Journal of Comparative Psychology 105, 15–24. Kaltas, G.A. and Chrousos, G.P (2007) The . neuroendorinology of stress. In: Cacioppo, J.T., Tassinary, L.G. and Berntson, G.G. (eds) Handbook of Psychophysiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 303–318.
179 Kanekar, S. (1976) Observational learning of attitudes: a behavioural analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology 6, 5–24. Katz, D. (1960) The functional approach to the study of attitude. Public Opinion Quarterly 24, 163–204. Kehrli, M.E., Burton, J.L., Nonnecke, B.J. and Lee, E.K. (1999) Effect of stress on leukocyte trafﬁcking and immune responses: implications for vaccinations. Advances in Veterinary Medicine 41, 61–81. Kendall, P and Hollon, S.D. (1979) Cognitive.C. Behavioural Interventions. Academic Press, London. Kennedy, J.M. and Baldwin, B.A. (1972) Taste preferences in pigs for nutritive and nonnutritive sweet solutions. Animal Behaviour 20, 706–718. Kerpelman, J.P and Himmelfarb, S. (1971) Partial . reinforcement effects in attitude acquisition and counterconditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 19, 301–305. Kilgour, R. and de Langen, H. (1970) Stress in sheep resulting from management practices. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 30, 65–76. Kline, P and Lapham, S. (1991a) The validity . of the PPQ: a study of its factor structure and its relationship to the EPQ. Personality and Individual Differences 6, 631–635. Kline, P and Lapham, S. (1991b) The validity . of the V scale of the PPQ. Personality and Individual Differences 6, 637–641. Kondos, A.C. (1983) Human resources. In: Proceedings of the 2nd National Pig Production and Marketing Review Conference, Hobart. Standing Committee on Agriculture, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory. Krohn, C.C., Jago, J.G. and Boivin, X. (2001) The effects of early handling on the socialization of young calves to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74, 121–133. Krohn, C.C., Boivin, X. and Jago, J.G. (2003) The presence of the dam during handling prevents the socialization of young calves to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80, 263–275. La Piere, R.T. (1934) Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces 13, 230–237.
180 Ladewig, J. and Matthews, L.R. (1996) The role of operant conditioning in animal welfare research. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A: Animal Science 27 (Suppl.), 64–68. Lambton, S.L., Knowles, T.G., Yorke, C. and Nicol, C.J. (2010) The risk factors affecting the development of gentle and severe feather pecking in loose house laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123, 32–42. Lawrence, A.B. and Illius, A.W. (1997) Measuring preferences and the problems of identifying proximate needs, animal choices. Animal Science 20, 19–26. LeDoux, J.E. (1996) The Emotional Brain. Simon & Schuster, New York. Lensink, B.J., Boissy, A. and Veissier, I. (2000a) The relationship between attitude and behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Annales de Zootechnie 49, 313–327. Lensink, B.J., Boivin, X., Pradel, P Le Neindre, ., P and Veissier, I. (2000b) Reducing veal . calves’ reactivity to people by providing additional human contact. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1213–1218. Lensink, B.J., Fernandez, X., Boivin, X., Pradel, P Le Neindre, P and Veissier, I. (2000c) ., . The impact of gentle contacts on ease of handling, welfare, and growth of calves and on quality of veal meat. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1219–1226. Lensink, B.J., Fernandez, X., Cozzi, G., Florand, L. and Veissier, I. (2001a) The inﬂuence of farmers’ behaviour on calves’ reactions to transport and quality of veal meat. Journal of Animal Science 79, 642–652. Lensink, B.J., Raussi, S., Boivin, X., Pyykkonen, M. and Veissier, I. (2001b) Reactions of calves to handling depend on housing condition and previous experience with humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70, 187–199. Lensink, B.J., Veissier, I. and Florland, L. (2001c) The farmers’ inﬂuence on calves’ behaviour, health and production of a veal unit. Animal Science 72, 105–116. Lensink, B.J., Leruste, H., De Bretagne, T. and Bizeray-Filoche, D. (2009) Sow behaviour towards humans during standard
References management procedures and their relationship to piglet survival. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, 151–157. Leslie, B.E., Meek, A.H., Kawash, G.F. and McKeown, D.B. (1994) An epidemiological investigation of pet ownership in Ontario. Canadian Veterinary Journal 35, 218–222. Levy, N. (2004) What Makes Us Moral? Crossing the Boundaries of Biology. Oneworld Publications, Oxford, UK. Lloyd, D.H. (1974) Effective staff management. In: Freedman, B.M. and Boorman, K.N. (eds) Economic Factors Affecting Egg Production. British Poultry Science Ltd, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 221–251. Lorenz, K.Z. (1970) Companions as factors in the bird’s environment. In: Lorenz, K.Z. (ed.) Studies on Animal and Human Behaviour. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Low Stress Stockhandling (2005) Attitude is everything. Available at: www.lss.net.au/ index.htm (accessed 25 April 2010). Lynne, D.G. and Rola, L.R. (1988) Improving attitude–behavior prediction models with economic variables: farmer actions toward soil conservation. Journal of Social Psychology 128, 19–28. Lyons, D.M. (1989) Individual differences in temperament of dairy goats and the inhibition of milk ejection. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22, 269–282. Lyons, D.M., Price, E.D. and Moberg, G.P . (1988) Individual differences in temperament of domestic dairy goats: constancy and change. Animal Behaviour 36, 1323–1333. Maio, G.R., Esses, V.M. and Bell, D.W. (1994) The formation of attitudes toward new immigrant groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24, 1762–1776. Mandler, G. (1981) Emotion. In: Gregory, R.L. (ed.) The Oxford Companion to the Mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 1219–1220. Marchant, J.N. and Broom, D.M. (1994) Effects of housing system on movement and leg strength in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41, 275–276. Martel, Y. (2002) Life of Pi. Canongate Books Ltd, Edinburgh, UK, p. 16.
References Maslow, A.H. (1970) Motivation and Personality, 2nd edn. Harper and Row, New York. Mateo, J.M., Estep, D.Q. and McCann, J.S. (1991) Effects of differential handling on the behaviour of domestic ewes (Ovis aries). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32, 45–54. Matteri, R.L., Carroll, J.A. and Dyer, C.J. (2000) Neuroendocrine response to stress. In: Mench, J.A. and Moberg, G. (eds) Biology of Animal Stress. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 43–76. Matthews, L.R. (1993) Deer handling and transport. In: Grandin, T. (ed.) Livestock Handling and Transport. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 253–272. Matthews, L.R. and Ladewig, J. (1994) Environmental requirements of pigs measured by behavioural demand functions. Animal Behaviour 47, 713–719. McFarland, D. (1981) The Oxford Companion to Animal Behaviour. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. McGuire, W.J. (1964) Inducing resistance to persuasion: some contemporary approaches. In: Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 1. Academic Press, New York. Mears, G.J., Brown, F.A. and Redmond, L.R. (1999) Effects of handling, shearing and previous exposure to shearing on cortisol and β-endorphin responses in ewes. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 79, 35–38. Mellor, D.J. and Littin, K.E. (2004) Using science to support ethical decisions promoting humane livestock slaughter and vertebrate pest control. Animal Welfare 13, 127–132. Mellor, D.J. and Stafford, K.J. (2000) Acute castration and/or tailing distress and its alleviation in lambs. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 48, 33–43. Mellor, D.J., Cook, C.J. and Stafford, K.J. (2000) Quantifying some responses to pain as a stressor. In: Mench, M. and Moberg, G.O. (eds) Biology of Animal Stress. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 171–198. Mench, J.A. (2008) Farm animal welfare in the USA: farming practices, research, education, regulation and assurance programs.
181 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, 298–312. Mendl, M. (1999) Performing under pressure: stress and cognitive function. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 221–244. Miller, D. (1995) Evaluating stockmanship capabilities in employees. Professional Swine Management Certiﬁcation Series, Swine Breeding Herd Management, Module 3 Stockmanship, Part H. Iowa Pork Industry Center, Ames, Iowa, pp. 1–4. Mills, A.D. and Faure, J.M. (1990) Panic and hysteria in domestic fowl: a review. In: Zayan, R. and Dantzer, R. (eds) Social Stress in Domestic Animals. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 248–272. Mills, A.D., Beilharz, R.G. and Hocking, P .M. (1997) Genetic selection. In: Appleby, M.C. and Hughes, B.O. (eds) Animal Welfare. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 205–217. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) (1983) British Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock. Her Majesty’s Stationery Ofﬁce, London. Moberg, G.P (2000) Biological response to . stress: implications for animal welfare. In: Mench, J.A. and Moberg, G. (eds) Biology of Animal Stress. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 1–21. Moe, R.O., Nordgreen, J., Janczak, A.M., Spruijt, B.M., Zanella, A.J. and Bakken, M. (2009) Trace classical conditioning as an approach to the study of reward-related behaviour in laying hens: a methodological study. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 171–178. Mounier, L., Dubroeucq, L., Andanson, S. and Veissier, I. (2006) Variations in meat pH of beef bulls in relation to conditions of transfer to slaughter and previous history of the animals. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1567–1576. Munksgaard, L., de Passille, A.M., Rushen, J., Thodberg, K. and Jensen, M.B. (1995) The ability of dairy cows to distinguish between people. Proceedings of the 29th International Congress of the International
M.M. J. Murphy.. L. J.B. P and . and Pearce.au (accessed 28 April 2010). M. M. (1975) The process of attitude acquisition: the value of a developmental approach to consumer attitude research. unpleasant or minimal handling during rearing. L.H. (2005) Affective consciousness: core emotional feelings in animals and humans. 139–154. G. Pedersen. and Zanna. In: Albarracin. Munksgaard.. (1989) The inﬂuence of pleasant and unpleasant handling and the provision of toys on the growth and behaviour of male pigs. L.C.A. The association of human contact with a food reward.gov. Jensen. Murphy.B. Palo Alto.G. L. (2000) Aversion learning techniques to References evaluate dairy cattle handling practices. Parker. . L.A. D. The effect of early experience. Ladewig. L. Rushen.ntis.. Pedersen. J. Pedersen. Pavlov. Murray.C. Applied Animal Ethology 3. and Lyons. A. and Pearce..B. The Foundation of Human and Animal Emotions. 321–334. B. Oxford University Press. J. A. A. New York. 30–80.L. Hormones and Behaviour 43..W.A. 5–12. L. and Stone. E.M. (2002) Behavioural and physiological effects of post-weaning handling and access to shelters in farmed blue foxes (Alopex lagopus). Panksepp. Hansen. McGraw-Hill. Schatzberg. M. New York. 249–264. 17th edn. Available at: www. Murphy. Murphy. Dover Publications Inc. 89–102. Applied Animal Ethology 4. A.. induced puberty in gilts handled pleasantly or unpleasantly during rearing.. Davies-Black Publishing.J. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77.J. and Duncan. 422–431. PhD thesis. 19–20 (abstract).J.P Paterson. and Matthews. 223–271.T. Moura Duarte. Rodwell. N. and Mitchell. New York.F. Olson. 27–37.. New York. Oxford University Press. Handbook of Attitudes. J.. A..B. Edinburgh University.J. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22.M. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77. A. Paterson.J. D. Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex. R. Advances in Consumer Research 2. Granner.I. Differing: Understanding Personality Type.P (1960) Conditioned Reﬂexes: an . 295–309. Myers. G. and Duncan. Consciousness and Cognition 14. L. V. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69.M.. UK. F.H. J. Panksepp. Animal Behaviour 26. California. L. and de Passille.P (1989) Boar. 60–66..B. Mayes. (1981) Responses of cattle to humans in open spaces: breed comparisons and approach–avoidance relationships. (1998) Affective Neuroscience.A. 315–328. (1978) The practical problems of recognizing and measuring fear and exploration behaviour in the domestic fowl. OIE (World Animal Health Organization) (2008) Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23. (2002a) Social isolation affects the motivation to work for food and straw in pigs as measured by operant conditioning techniques.182 Society of Applied Ethology. L. L. Murphey.B. Pearce.M. and Torres Penendo. response to humans and corticosteroids in male pigs housed individually and subjected to pleasant. (1977) Attempts to modify the responses of domestic fowl towards human beings. G. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34. R.W.M. Edinburgh. NTIS (National Training Information Service) (2010) Comprehensive information for the training sector specialist. B. . (2003) Harper’s Illustrated Biochemistry. II. (1976) A study of the behavioural expression of fear and exploration in two stocks of domestic fowl.K. Johnson. D. and Kongsted. Paterson. and Jeppesen. I. I. 1. 225–233. K.J. J.H..N. (2005) The inﬂuence of behavior on attitudes. Briggs and Myers. Behaviour Genetics 2.P (1992) Growth. and Pearce. Damm. Pajor. A. Psychology Press. 37–47.. S. (2003) Neuroendocrine aspects of hypercortisolism in major depression. pp.K. (2003) The inﬂuence of adverse or gentle . (1978) Attempts to modify the responses of domestic fowl towards human beings. A. P (1995) Gifts . pp.B. New York. L. Olson. Moeller.P (eds) The .
(1994) Responses of red deer to restraint in a Y maze preference test. Pedersen.. M. 307–313.J. F. Holroyd. and Heuer. Penguin Books. Wallingford. Petherick. Brock. Relationships with ﬂight speed and fear of humans.. Journal of Range Management 48. Holroyd. (1974) Evolutionary Ecology. S.L. Pianka. P . Harper and Row.K. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 76. New York. R. (1996) Sow preference for types of ﬂooring in farrowing crates. 383–393.A. R. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 120. Phillips. CAB International. and Standfast. Ravel. J.. Rokeach. B. . Purcell. and Olsson. In: Proceedings of the 14th Congress of the International Pig Veterinary Society.H. 485–489.K.. Bigras-Poulin. B. Barnett. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83. Fraser. Price. D. London.. C.E. p.M. Minneapolis. E. 97–99. and Fraser. P . B. Petherick. (1991) Preference by sows for a partially enclosed farrowing crate. and beef cattle temperament: 2. J. and Thompson. B. and Jeppesen. V.C.. and Ward. and Thompson. (eds) Brain and Memory: Modulation and Mediation of Plasticity. of handling and holding yard environment. 239–250. V. E. (2002) Productivity.L. and Venus.F.M. and Schirmer.C. Pedersen. and Olsson. C. 514. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39. (1998) The effects of handling on behavioural and physiological responses to housing in tether-stalls in pregnant pigs.J... P . P . Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 42. Thompson. E. P (2009b) Quality . Canadian Journal of Animal Science 68.D. 633–645..K. Consequences for stress and productivity.S. (1995) Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. Petherick. L. New York. (1978) Effects of regular handling and blood sampling by wing vein puncture on the performance of broilers and pullets.C.. and Benson. D.O. Reber. P (2009a) Quality .G. J. Fraser. A. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 21. Pedersen. (2002) Animal Domestication and Behaviour. Barram. 28–38. Unversity of Bologna. Phillips. M. J.. 389–398. Holroyd. 35–43. Bologna. 41–48. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26. J.J.P and Suttie. Personnel Decisions Inc (1996) PDI Employment Inventory.D.R. D’Allaire... Doogan. 277–290.L. G. J. In: McGaugh.. N. and beef cattle temperament: 1. B. Hemsworth. (1996) Personality traits of stockpeople working in farrowing units on two types of farms in Quebec. New York.. . 2–17. D.K. D. UK.. J. (1995) Emotion’s multiple effects on memory. Animal Welfare 7. Doogan. R. (1984) Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. (1993) Effects of difference postweaning handling procedures on the later behaviour of silver foxes. British Poultry Science 19. Venus.C.L. Quarterly Review of Biology 59. R. 183 Phillips.. V. (1983) Some aspects of job satisfaction in the Soviet Union. J. V.J. Price. 63–71. F. (1988) Preference tests of ramp designs for young pigs.C. (1960) The Open and Closed Mind: Investigations into the Nature of Belief Systems and Personality Systems.W. 137–150.References handling procedures on sexual behaviour in fearful and conﬁdent sows. Personnel Psychology 36.G. Provenza. (1988) Relationship of three measures of behaviour to milk production. 1–32.. E. R.. Oxford University Press.O. N. A.K. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32. Weiberger. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 120. Minnesota. pp. and Walters. Reisberg. B.A.. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. V. Phillips. (1988) Dictionary of Psychology. I. of handling and holding yard environment. Venus.A. J. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37. Arave. and Lynch. carcass and meat quality of lot-fed Bos indicus cross steers grouped according to temperament. B.. K. Basic Books. (1990) Effects of early handling on better behaviour and stress responses in the silver fox (Vulpes vulpes). K. Doogan. D. Reichmann. Littlejohn. V. Newman. 84–92.A. 18–27. J. Pollard.G.K. Bologna. Italy.G.
A. Seabrook. S. (1972a) A study to determine the inﬂuence of the herdsman’s personality on milk yield. Cambridge. 1–10. Scharl. S121–S126. Sapolsky. and Crews. 72–92. M. pp. L. and Mainous. Massachusetts. A.. J. MIT Press. J. S. September 1972. Orr. Potter’s Bar. Seabrook. R. (1994) The effect of production systems on the behaviour and attitudes of stockpersons. UK.M. . (1995) Location of handling and dairy cows’ ability to discriminate between gentle and aversive handlers. and Munksgaard. (1999) Fear of people by cows and effects on milk yield. A. S. J. Munksgaard. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85. (1986) Aversion of sheep to handling treatments: paired-choice studies. In: Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science and Agricultural Research Forum.. 519–528. Scott. In: 4th Zodiac Symposium.. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109. CAB International. A. UK. aversion of sheep to simulated shearing with and without electroimmobilization. pp. N. Thomas Publisher. In: Newton. 535–537. 252–258.. Simon. M. (1968) Some methodological implications of the research on “early handling” in the rat. (2008) Stroking of different body regions by a human: effects on behaviour and heart rate of dairy cows. C. and Leclercq. 287–324. H.F. Seabrook.B. (eds) Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. Journal of Dairy Science 82. (eds) Early Experience and Behaviour: the Psychobiology of Development. Munksgaard. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16. voice. D. 25–38.J. Sandøe. with and without and anti-bloat treatment.G.B. Illinois. Winschnurer. C. R.. Journal of Agriculture Labour Science 1. M. (eds) The Inevitable Bond – Examining Scientist– Animal Interactions. and Thodberg. Academy of Management Journal 31. G. Wageningen Academic Publishers. R. pp.. T. Leisch. Seabrook. X. de Passille. S. L.D.H. 599–627. S. Exeter.. Jensen. Yarrow. Rushen. A. 363–370.M.. 67.. Breedlove. D. (2004) Dietary preference of dairy heifers grazing ryegrass and white clover. X. pp. 175.F. (2004) Scientiﬁc uncertainty – how should it be handled in relation to scientiﬁc advice regarding animal welfare issues? Animal Welfare 13. Rogers. In: Keeling. H. K.A. A. F. de Passille. J. loyalty. H.M. and Boivin. Ergonomics 25. and Gonyou..E. UK. Waiblinger.. (1987) Effect of exogenous corticosterone References in genetically fat and lean chickens. Coleman. (1992) Neuroendocrinology of the stress-response. UK. Rusbult. de Passille. and Champion. Farrell. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology.. M. (1982) Motivation and performance.. 45–59. in human–non human relationships. p. Charles C.M. T. 720–727. National College of Agricultural Engineering. R. G. University Federation of Animal Welfare. Cambridge University Press. behaviour and heart rate at milking.. Saadoun.184 Ruis. M. and Balfour. Cambridge. J. and Tanida. F.M.W.. I. (2010) A multimedia-based cognitive-behavioural intervention program improves attitudes and handling behaviours of stockpeople in livestock farming. L.. 353–372. Publication No. and Boivin.F. 65–72.B. In: Becker. Wallingford. Waiblinger. P (1986) Relative . III (1988) Impact of exchange variables on exit. L. Springﬁeld.. S. B. G. Schmied. Cambridge. Schaefer.J. M.. Rushen.R. UK. UK. Wageningen.. (2001) People as social actors in the world of farm animals. Rutter.M. In: Davis. and Christiansen. Rushen. J. P Forkman. J. British Poultry Science 28. Silsoe. The Netherlands.J.B. and Congdon. (1972b) A study of the inﬂuence of the cowman’s personality and job satisfaction on milk yield of dairy cows. In: Joint Conference of the British Society for Agriculture Labour Science and the Ergonomics Research Society. Rushen. .P (1992) The phenomenon of attachment . Cambridge University Press. and Levine. and neglect: an integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 26. Rushen.B. (eds) Behavioral Endocrinology.
British Society of Animal Production. and Clarke. and Casey. and van Putten. Lambrou.F. Hormones and Behaviour 5. Scarborough. Werribee. B. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42. Stagner. 237–245. (1981) Microprocessor control of sheep movement. (1975) The adrenocortical response to competitive athletics in veteran althletes. (2003) Social context affects the motivation of laboratory mice. L. Selye. 649–655. (1946) The general adaptation syndrome and the diseases of adaptation. Teutsch. I. (1987) Intensive farm animal management seen from an ethical standpoint. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Wool Harvesting Research and Development. Singh. (1982) Openﬁeld behaviour in chickens: the experimenter is a predator. J.. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 96. Barnett. Australia. (1983) Effect of motivation.C.. Aberdeen. (1996) The Role of the Human Factor in Increasing Performance and Proﬁtability in Pig Production.) Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Systems. Muller. 185 Suarez. H. (1976) Growth in the Hubbard broiler: increase size following early handling.R. H. pp. Moderna. S145–S151. In: Brambell. Szechtman. R. Avon . M. McGraw-Hill. 459–464. p. and van Kampen. Segundo.. Massachusetts. Sherwin. (1961) Psychology of Personality. G.. In: von Loeper.J. Journal of Social Psychology 120. X. (ed.. J. (1976) Stress in Health and Disease.I. to gain access to resources. Paper Number 34. C. .W.J. Italy. 28.R. In: van Barneveld. P Caggiula. and Boivin.S. tudes to animals and their welfare. Command paper 2836. G. A. Prentice-Hall Inc. Miura. 135–138. In: Winter Meeting..S. Ethological and Legal Aspects of Intensive Farm Animal Management. A. Filozzo Rhone Poulenc Conference. H. G.J. New York. Seabrook. Durham. B. 9–40.R. values. E. New Jersey. Siegel.. Veissier. E. M. (eds) Ethical. and Bartle. Tanaka.. 191–200. (ed. pp. Selye.M. UK. (2000) Effects of stress on reproduction in non-rodent mammals: considerations of the role of glucocorticoids and sex differences. A. Mus musculus.C. T. (1984) Energy relationships in growing chickens given daily injections of corticosterone. P (2009) Effects of depriva. P (1975) Animal Liberation. W. 59–73. 71–79. 273–278. Tierhaltung. Singer. Skinner. H. Serpell. Butterworth.. tion of a preferred resource (feed or social contact) on the biological functioning of pigs. Tallet. and Yoshimoto. Australian Wool Corporation. 23–25 March 1992. Stevens. Developmental Psychobiology 9. Turner. ment: a Theoretical Analysis.. M. (1992) The practical implications of animals’ responses to man. S. and Gallup.References Seabrook. 2–13. (1965) The assessment of pain and distress in animals. .G..M. 432–439. 105–113. I. A.. Books. I. T. Reviews of Reproduction 5.R. J. Australasian Pig Science Association. C. J. G. and Elphick. Tanida. Sydney. Thorpe.A.D.) Manipulating Pig Production XII. University of Aberdeen.I.F (1969) Contingencies of Reinforce. N. A. H. Boston. Nabholz. pp. 249–259. (1989) A study of stockpeople and managers in the pig industry with special emphasis on the factors affecting their job satisfaction. Sutton. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology 6. F . J.H. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 94. A. British Poultry Science 25. Tilbrook. R.H. Englewood Cliffs.J. cognitive factors and child rearing among Punjab farmers. New York.P (2004) Factors affecting human atti. C. 117–230. London. MSc thesis.L. (2005) Human contact and feeding as rewards for the lambs’ afﬁnity to their stockperson. G. Martin. Syme. 18. and Hemsworth. Thompson.H. S. Her Majesty’s Stationery Ofﬁce. Animal Welfare 13. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 40. Tilbrook. (1995) Behavioural response to humans in individually handled weanling pigs. R. New South Wales. Animal Behaviour 66. Scotland.. Victoria. 477–485.H. and Redgate. (1974) Plasma corticosterone levels during sexual behaviour in male rat.
Cognitive Therapy and Research 9. (2002) The relationship between attitudes.. I. UK. P (1985a) Cognitive struc. M. Windschnurer. 1–17. P (1985b) Cognitive .. T. Turk. 481–489. P . (2003) Inﬂuences on the approach and avoidance behaviour of dairy cows at 35 farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101. M. J. D. 241. Waiblinger. and Waiblinger. Waynert. Pedersen. In: Proceedings of the 36th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology. Walsh. D. Judgements and inferences of the clinician. Menke. Chichester. (2009) Human–animal bonds II: the roles of pets in family systems and family therapy. Cognitive Therapy and Research 9. Animal Behaviour Science 117.S.C.F.K. Stookey. 145–156. Turk. R. Menke. J. Visser. cognitive processes. C. A. (2008) Housing hens to suit their ‘needs’.M. structures. I. Mounaix. S. In: Proceedings of the XXIII World Poultry Congress.F. F. X. Toates.. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79.. Ruis. S.. S. Warburton. SchwartzkopfGenswein. R. D.L. Boivin.M.C. (1999) The response of beef cattle to noise during handling. Waiblinger.H. Westphal. and Webster. H. F. tures. West Sussex.. V. J. 195–219. cognitive processes. A. Journal of Chemical Endocrinology 18. M.M. M. K. (2003) Is out of sight out of mind? The effects of resource cues on motivation in mink. and Bucher. Ministry of Agriculture. V. 173–204. 129 (abstract). Janczak. Fisheries and Food (MAFF). D. (2007) Domestic dogs and human health: an overview. and Mason. G.-V.H. London. (1980) Animal Behaviour – A Systems Approach.. U. X. A. London. S. John Wiley & Sons.. B. 1551 (abstract). F. and Jones. World’s Poultry Science Journal and the World’s Poultry Science Association. Tosi. Family Process 48.B. and cognitive-behavior modiﬁcation: II. D. Wells. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85. Widowski. 27–42. The Netherlands. emotion and action: a dynamic and vulnerable interdependence. and Coleman. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84. Boivin. UK Farm Animal Welfare Council (1993) Second Report on Priorities for Research and Development in Farm Animal Welfare.V. Korff..186 Toates. S. Menke. Veterinary Clinics of North America 15. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. References Waiblinger.. The Netherlands. M.J. 23–39. Windschnurer. Mustela vison. C. and Waiblinger. and Salovey. Vielle-Thomas.W. 31–42. 19–33. and Hemsworth. (2002) Stockperson–husbandry interactions and animal welfare in the extensive livestock industries. S. Boivin.K. Springer-Verlag. 755–762. X. Walker. Client issues. Vandenheede. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37.. C. E. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62. (1993) Sex differences in fear reactions in sheep. P . (2006) Assessing the human– animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. 185–242.. S. G. Waiblinger. G.L. British Journal of Health Psychology 12. (2009b) A multimedia-based cognitivebehavioural intervention program improves attitudes and handling behaviours of . (2004) Cognition. p.F. Utrecht. and Folsch. and Bouissou. and Signoret. (1985) Attachment of people to companion animals. 39–55. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86.. (2009a) Reliability of an avoidance distance test for the assessment of animals’ responsiveness to humans and a preliminary investigation of its association with farmers’ attitudes on bull fattening farms.P (1992) . Animal Behaviour 65. Berlin. Coleman.. motivation. (1987) Animal Learning: an Introduction. personal characteristics and behavior of stockpeople and subsequent behavior and production of dairy cows. (1971) Steroid–Protein Interactions.M. Tosi.. p. Pheromonal transmission of aversive experiences in domestic pigs. 117–127. Voith. 289–295. (2004) Previous handling and gentle interactions affect behaviour and heart rate of dairy cows during a veterinary procedure. A. and Hemsworth. Brule. and Salovey.. and cognitivebehavior modiﬁcation: I..
129–139. stress. V. J. Vienna.. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88. digestive tract measurements and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens. J. Liew. Animal Feed Science and Technology 116. . antibody and growth responses in broiler chickens. International Society for Applied Ethology (ISAE). and Siti Nor Azah. (2002) The effects of regular visual contact with human beings on fear. 187 Zulkiﬂi.B. (2004) Inﬂuence of whole wheat inclusion and xylanase supplementation on the performance.. Zulkiﬂi. I. 77–87. and Ravindran.K. 103–112. P . In: Proceedings from the International Society for Applied Ethology. Gilbert. (2004) Fear and stress reactions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79.References stockpeople on dairy farms. I. A. and Ginos. Y. and the performance of commercial broiler chickens subjected to regular pleasant and unpleasant contacts with human beings. Regional Meeting East and West Central Europe. Wu.
This page intentionally left blank .
90–92. 95–102 auditory contact 73–74. 95–96. 95–102 maintenance 135 measurement 86. 137–139. 135 auditory contact 73–74. 95. 76 affective states 37–42 Ajzen and Fishbein 8. 136 function 87 handling animals 92. 95–102 stockperson behaviour effects of stockperson training 142–151 effects of stockperson selection 3. 128–130 theory of reasoned action 8. 96–102. 88.Index 16 PF test 94 adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) 32–34. 122. 95–98 modiﬁcation 100. 113–114. 161–162 olfactory contact 73–74 prediction 88–92 stockperson attitude–behaviour relationship 88–92. 121–122. 140–152. 161–162 cognitive dissonance theory 88. 137–140 conation 86. 141–151 cognitive–behavioural intervention techniques 138–139. 96–102. 121–122. 90–92. 95. 89. 94–95. 90–92. 95–102. 140–152. 121–122 development 87–88. 89. 113–114. 129. 159–161 behaviour attitudes and behaviour 88–92. 136–139. 128–134. 122. 154 animal–human interactions see stockperson behaviour–animal behaviour relationship animal welfare. 142–152 productivity 7. see welfare attitude 26. 85–86. 156. 164–165 affect 86. 96–102. 90–92. 88–92. 140–142 cognition 86. 126. 128–134. 156 development 135–136 effects on fear see handling expression of normal or ‘natural’ behaviours 43–45 modiﬁcation 129. 95–96. 138–139. 95. 154 see also personality attitudes and behaviour 88–92. 84. 136–137 change 87–88. 156 automation 154. 126. 154 189 . 90–92. 96–102.
70–73. 80. 79. 127. 77. 124–126. 156 homeostasis 30–31. 99. 107 noradrenalin 31.190 behaviour continued stockperson behaviour continued measurement 95–102 variation in farm animals 129 stress response 36–37 tactile contact 48. 157–159 biological functioning 29–37 Index 107–116. 110–113. 80. 156 see also stockperson behaviour animal behaviour relationship behaviour modiﬁcation 38–39. 142–151. 117. 108–114. 159. 140–152. 54. 96–102. 108–114. 76. 164–165 fear 35–36 general fearfulness 50–51. 75–76. 53. 131–133 employment 6–14. 96–102. 77. 127. 126. 25. handling 3–4. 142–151 cognitive–behavioural intervention techniques 138–139. 126–128 beef cattle 81–82 dairy cattle 79–81. 71–72 effects on productivity 74. 108–114 measurement of 58 physiological responses 52. 62–70. 62–63. 161–162 behavioural responses to humans 36–37. 161–162 cognitive dissonance theory 88. 74–75. 137–140 ﬂight distance 50–51. 34 human–animal interactions 1–2. 79–80. 54. 71–72. 62–70. 157–159 deﬁnition 54–55 effects of handling 51–52. 167 attitudes 92. 96–102. 123–124. 81 fear of humans see fear of humans fear of humans 50. 62. 107 cognitive–behavioural intervention techniques 138–139. 55–58. 96–102. 157 visual contact 48. 126–128. 56. 121–124. 161–162 cognitive–behavioural training 138–139. 117–119. 149 speed 81–82 catecholamines 32. 127 effects on welfare 82–83. 38. 63–70. 77. 62. 124. 79–80. 107 cortisol 3–4. 142–144 negative 7. 52–53. 82–83. 80. 138–139. 75. 77. 140–152. 71–72. 53. 160 emotions 35–36. 60. 56. 159–160 reduction 52–53. 120. 94–95. 122–126. 63–70. 59. 77. 137–140 corticosteroids 32–34. 76 corticosterone 32. 124–126. 113–114. 120. 157–161. 120. 126– 128. 96–102. 154. 142–144 tactile contact 48. 56. 127 adrenalin 31. 117–119. 108–114. 126–128 levels in farm animals 50–53. 127. 140–152. 50–51. 110–111. 72. 76–77. 54. 3–4. 76–77. 95–102 auditory contact 73–74. 143–145 poultry 58. 74–76. 156 effects on fear 51–52. 118–119. 78. 50–51. 108. 32. 53–54. 114–116. 55–58. 142–144 effects of handling during rearing 51–52. 121–126. 76–79. 54–55 empathy 9. . 70–73. 133–134 behavioural responses 36–37. 116–117. 34. 142–151. 80. 107–116. 65–70. 78. 117–119. 71. 126–128. 75. 118–119. 142–144 olfactory contact 73–74 positive 52–53. 48. 55. 55–58. 114–116. 128 goats 81 pigs 57–58. 107. 167 Festinger 88. 37–42. 63–64. 74. 121–126. 56. 56. 157 visual contact 48.
131–133 habituation to humans 52. 128–134. 135 human behaviour 9–10. 121–126. 62–70. 121–122. 55–58. 84. 157–159 ease of handling 117–119 conditioned responses to humans 51–52 classical conditioning 49–50. 154. 108–114. 161–164 cognitive–behavioural training/ intervention 138–139. 77. 126. 52–53. 79–77. 62–63 191 attitudes and behaviour 88–92. 79–80. 77. 51–53. 126–128. 122–126. 63–64. 59–60. 129. 114–116 behavioural responses of animals 36–37.Index 21–24. 62–63. 71–72. 127–128 job satisfaction 12–14. 53. 112–113. 156 behaviour modiﬁcation 38–39. 74. 157–161. 96–102. 78. 80. 127. 126–128. 96–102. 62–70. 96–102. 128–133. 62–63. 137–138 sequential 128–129. 105. 114–116. 135 auditory contact 73–74. 142–151. 94–95. 80. 79–80. 123–124. 53. 156 effects on fear 51–52. 117–119. 153–154. 121–124. 138–139. 77. 124–126. 120. 142–144 olfactory 73–74 positive 52–53. 75. 113–114. 75–76 immune function 76–77. 16–19. 82. 63–64. 76–77. 124–126. 144 empathy 9. 49–50. 47–50. 125–126 see also learning human behaviours 3–4. 80. 118–119. 113–114. 161–162 development 135–136 effects on fear see handling olfactory contact 73–74 tactile contact 48. 96–102. 135 reciprocal 135. 73. 161–162 low stress handling training 151 hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis 31–37. 108–114. 62. 74–75. 153–154. 25. 156 model 128–133. 114–116. 157 visual 48. 70–72. 121–126. 142–144 tactile 48. 70–73. 167 auditory 73–74. 122–126. 126. 164–165 training 2–3. 131. 77. 165–167 . 63–70. 142–144 negative 7. 96–102. 127. 136–137. 50–51. 70–73. 140–152. 96–102. 167 animal discrimination of humans 80. 108–114. 151–152. 6–14. 77. 129. 78. 95–102. 107–116. 157–159 conditioned approach–avoidance response 50–53. 140–152. 130–131. 62. 108–114. 156 see also stockperson and stockperson behaviour–animal behaviour relationship human–farm animal interactions 47–49 effects of stockperson selection. 48. 108. 71. 157 visual contact 48. 142–151 cognitive–behavioural intervention techniques 138–139. 120. 103–104. 117–119. 110–113. 118–119. 148. 122–126. 154 effects of stockperson training 142–151 models 128–133 necessity of 156–161 see also handling and stockperson behaviour–animal behaviour relationship human resources absenteeism 11–14 evaluating performance 14–16 recruitment 6–14.
74. 73. 79–77. 125–126 instrumental conditioning 53. 162–163 low stress handling 151 olfactory contact 73–74 opinions see attitude Index models human–animal interactions 128–133 job commitment 12 theory of reasoned action 8. 74–76. 77. 58. 52–53. 54. 122–126. 114–116. 108 primary 53. 136 reinforcers negative 52–53. 164–165 16 PF test 94 authoritarianism 87. 108 positive 52–53. 26. 7. 154 empathy 9. 112–113. 108–114. 62–63. 142–144 preference testing 39–42 productivity 1. 79–80. 16 dogmatism 139 effect on productivity 8–9. 51–53. 58–59. 93 ﬁve factor theory 8 introversion 8. 59–60. 145–146 negative fear–productivity relationship see fear of humans. 76–79. 48. 164–165 sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF) 94 skills 4–5. 118–119. see learning. 128 goats 81 pigs 57–58. 114–116 unconditioned 51–52. 59–60. instrumental conditioning reinforcement 104–105. 130 Myer-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) 8. 126–128 beef cattle 81–82 dairy cattle 79–81. 96–102. 104–105 legislation 25. 126–128. 139 ‘big ﬁve’ measures 8. 63–64. 76–77. 128–130 effect of personality 8–9. 154. 105–106 generalization 107. 123–124. 22–23 effect of attitudes and behaviour 7. 93–95. 104–105 work 9–10. 108. 116–117. 93–95. 90–92. 144. 63. 114–116. 56. 74–75. 70–72. 131–133 extraversion 8. 95–96. 27. 96–102. 121–124. 105. 142–144 selection 6–14. 124 motivation 104–105 operant conditioning. 22–23. 93–94 see also attitude personality traits see personality positive handling 52–53. 104. 143–145 poultry 58. 63–70. 126–128 fear of humans 74. 71. 154 effect of stockperson 3–4. 20. 105–106 stimulus-response 51–52. 78. 122. 72–73. 64. 110–113. 93 Myer-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) 8. 25. 118–119. 160 stimulus 49–50. 105–106. 27–28 reproduction 74. 154 motivation 24. 136–137. 93–94 PDI employment inventory (PDI-EI) PDI-EI performance 15 PDI-EI tenure 15–16 personality 7. 107 secondary 107 sensitization 72. 56. 63. 80. 144 habituation 52.192 learning 103–104 classical conditioning 49–50. 95. 79–80. 129–131 socialisation 66–70 . 127 public opinion 21. effects on productivity negative handling 7. 63–64. 154. 127. 54. 71–72. 60–62 conditioned 51. 94–95. 104. 157–159 conditioned approach–avoidance response 50–53.
127 . 80. 157 visual 48. 76–77. 161–164 cognitive–behavioural training/ intervention 138–139. 154 effects of stockperson training 142–151 measurement 95–102 variation in farm animals 129 see also human behaviour effects on productivity 3–4. 139 dogmatism 139 effect on productivity 8–9. 142–151. 121–124. 108. 79. 130 stockperson attitude–behaviour relationship 88–92. 122–126. 122–126. 7. 123–124. 82–83 acute stress response 33. 93 see also productivity evaluating performance 14–16 gender 15–16. 131. 156 model 128–133. 84. 113–114. 118–119. 62–63. 82. 151–152. 157–161. 107–116. 165–167 work conditions 5–6. 114–116. 95–102 stockperson behaviour–animal behaviour relationship 3–4. 74. 70–72. 16–19. 135 see also attitude behaviour effects of stockperson selection 3. 129–131 training 2–3. 128–133. 118–119. 135 stress 30–31. 77. 130–131. 25. 131–133 habituation to humans 52. 37. 153–154. 74–75. 120. 129. 165–167 job turnover 4. 110–113. 117 catecholamines 32. 157–159 ease of handling 117–119 classical conditioning 49–50. 142–144 negative 7. 157–159 conditioned approach–avoidance response 50–53. 6. 127. 117–119. 167 193 animal discrimination of humans 80. 73. 122–126. 62. 98 image and self-esteem 2–3. 77. 51–53. 108–114. 126. 156 effects on fear 51–52. 153–154. 56–57. 121–126. 154 personality 7. 15–16. 167–168 job commitment 11–12 job satisfaction 12–14. 63–64. 154. 167 auditory 73–74. 96–102. 80. 55–58. 103–104. 154. 148 knowledge 4–5. 77. 50–51. 53. 126–128. 154 empathy 9. 71–72. 59–60. 96–102. 126–128. 131–133 extraversion 8. 78. 120. 131 work motivation 9–10. 161–162 low stress handling training 151 work beneﬁts 87. 96–102.Index stereotypes 87–88 stockperson 1–2. 79–77. 144 conditioned responses to humans 51–52 empathy 9. 78. 62–70. 124–126. 142–144 tactile 48. 130–131. 164–165 authoritarianism 87. 93 introversion 8. 75. 95. 114–116 behavioural responses of animals 36–37. 105. 155 job characteristics 4–6. 34. 11–14. 114–116. 63–70. 94–95. 108–114. 21–24. 96–102. 153–154 absenteeism 11–14 attitude 95–102. 129–131. 79–80. 94–95. 112–113. 48. 164–165 skills 4–5. 128–133. 52–53. 135 reciprocal 135. 125–126 see also learning human behaviours 3–4. 140–152. 63–64. 117–119. 25. 129–130. 142–144 olfactory 73–74 positive 52–53. 137–138 sequential 128–129. 70–73. 136–137. 148. 71. 7. 93 role 2–4. 156–157 selection 6–14. 108–114. 56. 62–63. 75–76. 47–50. 93–95. 79–80.
54. 79. 107. 161–162 low stress handling training 151 turnover 4. 62–70. 57–58. 56. 37 see also stress Index theory of planned behaviour 92. 38. 133–134. 117 animal rights 45–46 community views 21. 59. 56. 21–22. 127. 140–152. 121–126. 107 noradrenalin 31. 122. 127 effects on animal welfare 34–37 ﬁght-ﬂight syndrome 32. 154–155 exploitation of animals 22–23 measurement 26–27. 151–152. 56. 148 visual contact 48. 76. 128 goats 81 pigs 57–58. 32. 95–96. 39–42 standards 25. 34. 157 welfare 1–4. 77. 154 behavioural intention 90–91 perceived behavioural control 92 subjective norms 90–91 theory of reasoned action 8. 79. 107 cortisol 3–4. 58–62 sympathetic-adrenal-medullary (SAM) axis 31–33. 156 tactile contact 48. 62. 116–117. 126–128. 76–79. 126–128 corticosteroids 32–34. 23–24. 161–164 cognitive–behavioural training/ intervention 138–139. 72. 56 hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis 31–37. 28–29.194 stress continued catecholamines continued adrenalin 31. 75–76 measurement 34–37. 11–14. 159. 24–25. 82–83. 153–154. 54. 26. 77. 22–23. 116–117. 90–92. 154 training 2–3. 56. 131. 126–128 beef cattle 81–82 dairy cattle 79–81. 74–76. 45–46. 25–28 concepts affective states 37–42 biological functioning 29–37 expression of normal or ‘natural’ behaviours 43-45 effects of the stockperson 20. 129. 79–80. 160 effects on animal productivity 36–37. 15–16. 96–102. 74. 127. 53. 16–19. 70–73. 76 corticosterone 32. 124–126. 143–145 poultry 58. 27 see also fear of humans . 80. 107 chronic stress response 33–34. 75–76. 108–114.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.