Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:56:28.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The integration of human-animal relations into animal welfare monitoring schemes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

PH Hemsworth ,
JL Barnett  and
GJ Coleman
PH Hemsworth*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, The Melbourne School of Land and Environment, The University of Melbourne, and the Department of Primary Industries (Victoria), Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
JL Barnett
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, The Melbourne School of Land and Environment, The University of Melbourne, and the Department of Primary Industries (Victoria), Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
GJ Coleman
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, School of Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine, Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: phh@unimelb.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are increasing local and international pressures for farm animal welfare monitoring schemes. Housing of farm animals is a contentious issue for many, although the impact of the housing system may be overestimated by some. In contrast, the topic of stockmanship has received relatively little attention, even though research has shown that animal carers or stockpeople have a major impact on the welfare of their livestock. While welfare monitoring schemes are likely to improve animal welfare, the impact of such schemes will only be realised by recognising the limitations of stockpeople, monitoring ‘stockmanship’ and providing specific stockperson training to target key aspects of stockmanship. Appropriate strategies to recruit and train stock-people in the livestock industries are integral to safeguarding the welfare of livestock. Monitoring the key job-related characteristics of the stockperson, attitudes to animals and to working with these animals, empathy, work motivation and technical knowledge and skills, provides the opportunity to detect deficits in stockmanship and the necessity for further targeted training. Due to the strong relationships between stockperson attitudes and behaviours and animal fear responses, as well as the relationships between attitudes and other job-related characteristics, we believe attitudes, together with empathy, work motivation and technical knowledge and skills, should be the principal focus of measuring stockmanship in on-farm welfare monitoring schemes.

Keywords

animal welfarefearhuman-animal relationslivestockstockmanshipwelfare monitoring
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2009 , pp. 335 - 345
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, IL, Berg, S, Boe, KE and Edwards, S 2006 Positive handling in late pregnancy and the consequences for maternal behaviour and production in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99: 64–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Animal Welfare Science Centre 2005 ProHand Pigs. www.animal-welfare.org.au. (Accessed 10 November 2008)Google Scholar
Anthony, R 2003 The ethical implications of the human-animal bond on the farm. Animal Welfare 12: 505–512Google Scholar
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH and Hand, AM 1983 The effect of chronic stress on some blood parameters in the pig. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 273–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH and Newman, EA 1992 Fear of humans and its relationships with productivity in laying hens at commercial farms. British Poultry Science 33: 699–710CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Hennessy, DP, McCallum, TM and Newman, EA 1994 The effects of modifying the amount of human contact on the behavioural, physiological and production responses of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41: 87–100Google Scholar
Beveridge, LM 1996 Studies on the influence of human characteristics and training on stockperson work performance and farm animal behaviour. PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen, UKGoogle Scholar
Blecha, F, Pollmann, DS and Nicholas, DA 1983 Weaning pigs at an early age decreases cellular immunity. Journal of Animal Science 56: 396–400CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bredbacka, P 1988 Relationships between fear, welfare and productive traits in caged White Leghorn hens. In: Unshelm, J, Van Putten, G, Zeeb, K and Ekesbo, I (eds) Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology in Farm Animals pp 74–89. Skara, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Breuer, K 2000 Fear and productivity in dairy cattle. PhD Thesis, Monash University, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 2003 The effect of positive or negative handling on the behavioural responses of nonlactating heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Matthews, LR and Coleman, GJ 2000 Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 273–288CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carless, SA, Fewings-Hall, S, Hall, M, Hay, M, Hemsworth, P and Coleman, GJ 2007 Selecting unskilled and semi-skilled blue-collar workers: the criterion-related validity of the PDI-Employment Inventory. International Journal of Selection and Assessment as an Information Exchange Article 15(3): 335–340Google Scholar
Clarke, IJ, Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Tilbrook, AJ 1992 Stress and reproduction in farm animals. In: Sheppard, KE, Boublik, JH and Funder, JW (eds) Stress and Reproduction pp 239–251. Raven Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Coleman, GJ 2001 Selection of stockpeople to improve productivity. The Fourth Industrial and Organisational Psychology Conference pp 30. 21-24 June 2001, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Coleman, GJ 2004 Personnel management in agricultural systems. In: Rollin, BE and Benson, J (eds) Maximizing Well-being and Minimizing Suffering in Farm Animals pp 167–181. Iowa State University Press: Iowa, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, GJ, Hemsworth, PH, Hay, M and Cox, M 1998 Predicting stockperson behaviour towards pigs from attitudinal and job-related variables and empathy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 63–75Google Scholar
Coleman, GJ, Hemsworth, PH, Hay, M and Cox, M 2000 Modifying stockperson attitudes and behaviour towards pigs at a large commercial farm. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, JW and Siegel, PB 1987 Human handling, flock size and responses to an E. coli challenge in young chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cransberg, PH, Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 2000 Human factors affecting the behaviour and productivity of commercial broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 41: 272–279CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Passillé, AMB and Rushen, J 2005 Can we measure human-animal interactions in on-farm welfare assessment? Some unresolved issues. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92: 193–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, LE 2008 The human-animal relationship in the laying hen. PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne, VIC, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Elsasser, TH, Klasing, KC, Filiov, N and Thompson, F 2000 The metabolic consequences of stress: targets for stress and priorities of nutrient use. In: Mench, M and Moberg, GO (eds) Biology of Animal Stress pp 77–110. CABI Publishing: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2001 Farm animal production: changing agriculture in a changing culture. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4: 175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, BM and Manning, ACC 1979 Stressor effects of handling on the immature fowl. Research in Veterinary Science 26: 223–226CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glaser, R and Kiecolt-Glaser, JK 2005 Stress-induced immune dysfunction: implications for health. Nature Reviews 5: 243–250Google ScholarPubMed
Gonyou, HW, Hemsworth, PH and Barnett, JL 1986 Effects of frequent interactions with humans on growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 269–278Google Scholar
Gross, WB and Siegel, PB 1979 Adaptation of chickens to their handlers and experimental results. Avian Diseases 23: 708–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, WB and Siegel, PB 1980 Effects of early environmental stresses on chicken body weight, antibody response to RBC antigens, feed efficiency and response to fasting. Avian Diseases 24: 549–579Google Scholar
Gross, WB and Siegel, PB 1981 Socialization as a factor in resistance to infection, feed efficiency and response to antigen in chickens. American Journal of Veterinary Research 43: 2010–2012Google Scholar
Gross, WB and Siegel, PB 1982 Influences of sequences of environmental factors on the responses of chickens to fasting and to Staphylococcus aureus infection. American Journal of Veterinary Research 43: 137–139Google Scholar
Hearnshaw, H, Barlow, R and Want, G 1979 Development of a ‘temperament’ or ‘handling difficulty’ score for cattle. Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of Australian Animal Breed Genetics 1: 164–166Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Hansen, C 1981a The influence of handling by humans on the behaviour, growth and corticosteroids in the juvenile female pig. Hormones and Behaviour 15: 396–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Brand, A and Willems, PJ 1981b The behavioural response of sows to the presence of human beings and their productivity. Livestock Production Science 8: 67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Hansen, C 1986 The influence of handling by humans on the behaviour, reproduction and corticosteroids of male and female pigs. Applied Animal Behavaviour Science 15: 303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH and Barnett, JL 1989 Relationships between fear of humans, productivity and cage position of laying hens. British Poultry Science 30: 505–518Google ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett JL Coleman, GJ and Hansen, C 1989 A study of the relationships between the attitudinal and behavioural profiles of stockpersons and the level of fear of humans and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 301–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH and Barnett, JL 1991 The effects of aversively handling pigs, either individually or in groups, on their behaviour, growth and corticosteroids. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 61–72Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ and Barnett, JL 1994a Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 349–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL and Jones, RB 1994b Fear of humans and the productivity of commercial broiler chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41: 101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Campbell, RG 1996a A study of the relative aversiveness of a new daily injection procedure for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 389–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GC, Cransberg, PH and Barnett, JL 1996b Human factors and the productivity and welfare of commercial broiler chickens. Research Report on Chicken Meat Research and Development Council Project, Attwood: AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 1998 Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively-farmed Animals. CAB International: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Pedersen, V, Cox, M, Cronin, GM and Coleman, GJ 1999 A note on the relationship between the behavioural response of lactating sows to humans and the survival of their piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL and Borg, S 2000 Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 78: 2821–2831CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL, 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: 68–78CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, JA 1991 PDI-Employment Inventory. In: Keyser, DJ and Sweetland, RC (eds) Test Critiques 8: 548–556. Pro-Ed: USAGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB and Hughes, BO 1981 Effects of regular handling on growth in male and female chicks of broiler and layer strains. British Poultry Science 22: 461–465Google Scholar
Kaltas, GA and Chrousos, GP 2007 The neuroendocrinology of stress. In: Cacioppo, JT, Tassinary, LG and Berntson, GG (eds) Handbook of Psychophysiology pp 303–318. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Lensink, BJ, Boissy, A and Veissier, I 2000 The relationship between farmers’ attitude and behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Annales de Zootechnie 49: 313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensink, BJ, Veissier, I and Florland, L 2001 The farmers’ influence on calves’ behaviour, health and production of a veal unit. Animal Science 72: 105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, N 2004 What Makes Us Moral? Crossing the Boundaries of Biology. OneWorld: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Lyons, DM 1989 Individual differences in temperament of dairy goats and the inhibition of milk ejection. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 269–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matteri, RL, Carroll, JA and Dyer, CJ 2000 Neuroendocrine response to stress. In: Mench, JA and Moberg, GO (eds) Biology of Animal Stress pp 43–76. CAB International: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Mellor, DJ and Littin, KE 2004 Using science to support ethical decisions promoting humane livestock slaughter and vertebrate pest control. Animal Welfare 13: 127–132Google Scholar
Moberg, GP 2000 Biological response to stress: implications for animal welfare. In: Mench, JA and Moberg, G (eds) Biology of Animal Stress pp 1–21. CAB International: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Murphey, RM, Moura Duarte, FA and Torres Penendo, MC 1981 Responses of cattle to humans in open spaces: Breed comparisons and approach-avoidance relationships. Behaviour Genetics 2: 37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paajanen, GE, Hansen, TL and McLellan, RA 1999 Employment Inventory Research, First Edition. Technology Based Solutions. http://www.theworksuite.com/sitebuildercontent/site-builderfiles/ei_research.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Damm, BI and Kongsted, AG 2003 The influence of adverse or gentle handling procedures on sexual behaviour in fearful and confident sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83: 277–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regnier, JA and Kelley, KW 1981 Heat- and cold-stress suppresses in vivo and in vitro cellular immune responses of chickens. American Journal of Veterinary Research 42: 294–299Google ScholarPubMed
Reichmann, KG, Barram, KM, Brock, IJ and Standfast, NF 1978 Effects of regular handling and blood sampling by wing vein puncture on the performance of broilers and pullets. British Poultry Science 19: 97–99Google ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J, de Passillé, AMB and Munksgaard, L 1999 Fear of people by cows and effects on milk yield, behaviour and heart rate at milking. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 720–727Google ScholarPubMed
Spoolder, HAM 2007 Fear of humans. In: Verlarde, A and Geers, R (eds) On-Farm Monitoring of Pig Welfare pp 35–39. Wageningen Academic Press: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Thompson, CI 1976 Growth in the Hubbard broiler: Increase size following early handling. Developmental Psychobiology 9: 459–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S and Spoolder, HAM 2007 Quality if stockmanship. In: Verlarde, A and Geers, R (eds) On Farm Monitoring of Pig Welfare pp 156–166. Wageningen Academic Press: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Coleman, G 2002 The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behavior of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 195–219Google Scholar