Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:21:55.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stockmanship and Farm Animal Welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

X Boivin ,
J Lensink ,
C Tallet  and
I Veissier
X Boivin*
Affiliation:
URH-ACS, INRA de Theix, F-63122 St Genés Champanelle, France
J Lensink
Affiliation:
Institut Supérieur d'Agriculture, 41 Rue du Port, F-59046 Lille cedex, France
C Tallet
Affiliation:
URH-ACS, INRA de Theix, F-63122 St Genés Champanelle, France
I Veissier
Affiliation:
URH-ACS, INRA de Theix, F-63122 St Genés Champanelle, France
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Human factors (attitudes, personality traits, self-esteem, job satisfaction) strongly determine our behaviour towards animals, animal production and animal welfare. Recent studies have emphasised positive human contacts as indicators of a stockperson's positive attitude towards animals and towards animal welfare in general. Stockmanship can be improved by careful selection of people and/or by training. However, little is known of the biological basis of the effect of stock handling procedures on the welfare of animals. The animal's perception of the stockperson (based both on emotional responses and cognitive aspects such as anticipation, recognition and categorisation), and the existence of sensitive periods in an animal's life, need to be explored in more depth, especially under farm conditions. We need to consider the complexity of human behaviour (eg husbandry practices, balance between positive and negative interactions, predictability, controllability) and its effect on animal welfare from the animal's point of view throughout its whole life. This paper identifies the importance of positive human contacts for both animals and stockpeople, and highlights the challenge to maintain such positive contacts despite the trend in modern agriculture to increase the number of animals per stockperson. This requires better knowledge of animal genetics, socialisation to humans during sensitive periods, and management of the social group. We emphasise the ethical importance of the human-animal relationship in the context of farm animal welfare and productivity.

Keywords

animal behaviouranimal welfarecognitiondomestic animalshuman-animal relationshipstockmanship
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2003 , pp. 479 - 492
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bateson, P 1979 How do sensitive periods arise and what are they for? Animal Behaviour 27: 470–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beausoleil, N, Stafford, K J and Mellor, D J 2002 Do sheep regard humans as predators? In: Animal Welfare and Behaviour: From Science to Solution. Proceedings of the Regional ISAE Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology (Australasian/African Region) pp 29. June 27-28 2002, Hamilton, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A 1995 Fear and fearfulness in animals. The Quarterly Review of Biology 70: 165–191CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boissy, A and Le Neindre, P 1997 Behavioral, cardiac and Cortisol responses to brief peer separation and reunion in cattle. Physiology and Behaviour 61: 693–699CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boivin, X and Braastad, B O 1996 Effects of handling during temporary isolation after early weaning on goat kids’ later response to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X, Boissy, A, Nowak, R, Henry, C, Tournadre, H and Le Neindre, P 2002 Maternal presence limits the effects of early bottle feeding and petting on lambs’ socialisation to the stockperson. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77: 311–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X, Garel, J P, Durier, C and Le Neindre, P 1998a Is gentling by people rewarding for beef calves? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61: 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X, Garel, J P, Mante, A and Le Neindre, P 1998b Beef calves react differently to different handlers according to the test situation and their previous interactions with their caretaker. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 245–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X, Le Neindre, P and Chupin, J M 1992 Establishment of cattle-human relationships. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X, Le Neindre, P, Garel, J P and Chupin, J M 1994 Influence of breed and rearing management on cattle reactions during human handling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X, Tournadre, H and Le Neindre, P 2000 Hand-feeding and gentling influence early-weaned lambs’ attachment responses to their stockperson. Journal of Animal Science 78: 879–884CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Budiansky, S 1999 The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication pp 212. Yale University Press: Yale, USAGoogle Scholar
Burrow, H M, Seifert, G W and Corbet, N J 1988 A new technique for measuring temperament in cattle. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 17: 154–157Google Scholar
Chupin, J M and Sarignac, C 1998 How to train cattle breeders to handling of bovines? In: Veissier I and Boissy A (eds) Proceedings of the 32nd International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology p 117. ISAE: Clermont-Ferrand, FranceGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 2002 What animals want: the assessment of welfare from the animal's point of view. In: Animal Welfare and Behaviour: From Science to Solution. Proceedings of the Regional ISAE Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology (Australasian/African Region) p 14. June 27-28 2002, Hamilton, New-ZealandGoogle Scholar
De Jonge, F H, Aarts, M N C, Steuten, C D M and Goewie, E A 2001 Strategies to improve animal welfare through good stockmanship. In: Hovi, M and Bouilhol, M (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd NAHWOA Workshop, Human-Animal Relationship: Stockmanship and Housing in Organic Livestock Systems pp 38–42. October 21-24 2000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. University of Reading: UKGoogle Scholar
Denenberg, V H 1968 A consideration of the usefulness of the critical period hypothesis as applied to the stimulation of rodents in infancy. In: Newton, G and Levine, S (eds) Early Experience and Behavior: The Psychobiology of Development pp 142–167. CC Thomas: Springfield, Illinois, USAGoogle Scholar
English, P R, McPherson, O, Deligeorgis, S G, Vidal, J M, Tarocco, C, Bertaccini, F and Sterten, H 1999 Evaluation of the effects of training methodologies, motivational influences and staff and enterprise development initiatives for livestock industry workers in Scotland, Greece, Spain, Italy and Norway on livestock performance and indices of animal welfare. British Society of Animal Science 23: 137–143Google Scholar
Estep, D Q and Hetts, S 1992 Interactions, relationships, and bonds: the conceptual basis for scientist-animal relations. In: Davis, H and Balfour, D (eds) The Inevitable Bond: Examining Scientist-Animal Interactions pp 6–26. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Feh, C and De Mazières, J 1993 Grooming at a preferred site reduces heart rate in horses. Animal Behaviour 46: 1191–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, A D, Morris, C A and Matthews, L R 2000 Cattle behaviour: comparison of measures of temperament in beef cattle. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 60: 214–217Google Scholar
Fordyce, G, Goddard, M E, Tyler, R, Williams, G and Toleman, M A 1985 Temperament and bruising of Bos indicus cross cattle. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 25: 283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1995 Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the inextricable connection. Animal Welfare 4: 103–117Google Scholar
Grandin, T 1998 The feasibility of using vocalization scoring as an indicator of poor welfare during cattle slaughter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2000 Behavioural principles of handling cattle and other grazing animals under extensive conditions. In: Grandin, T (ed) Livestock Handling and Transport, Edn 2 pp 63–85. CAB International: Wallingford, Oxon, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T, Deesing, M J, Struthers, J J and Swinker, A M 1995 Cattle with hair whorl patterns above the eyes are more behaviorally agitated during restraint. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, E B 1969 Domestication and the evolution of behaviour. In: Hafez, E S E (ed) The Behavior of Domestic Animals pp 23–42. Baillère, Tindall & Cassel: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hare, B, Brown, M, Williamson, C and Tomasello, M 2002 The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298: 1634–1636CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hediger, H 1956 Wild animals in captivity. Journal of the Zoological Society of London 56: 154–183Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P H 2003 Human-animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P H and Coleman, G J 1998 Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals pp 158. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P H, Barnett, J L and Hansen, C 1987 The influence of inconsistent handling by humans on the behaviour, growth and corticosteroids of young pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17: 245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P H, Barnett, J L, Tilbrook, A J and Hansen, C 1989 The effects of handling by humans at calving and during milking on the behaviour and milk cortisol concentrations of primiparous dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 313–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 2821–2831CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, P H, Pedersen, V, Cox, M, Cronin, G M and Coleman, G J 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, P H, Verge, J and Coleman, G J 1996 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 50: 71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 62: 137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1996 Fear and adaptability in poultry: insights, implications and imperatives. World's Poultry Science Journal 52: 131–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K M 1998 Intelligent perception. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57: 213–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostarczyk, E 1992 The use of dog-human interaction as a reward in instrumental conditioning and its impact on dogs’ cardiac regulation. In: Davis, H and Balfour, D (eds) The Inevitable Bond: Examining Scientist-Animal Interactions pp 109–131. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Kraemer, G W 1992 A psychobiological theory of attachment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15: 493–541CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kretchmer, K R and Fox, M W 1975 Effects of domestication on animal behaviour. Veterinary Record 96: 102–108CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krohn, C C, Jago, J G and Boivin, X 2001 The effect of early handling on the socialisation of young calves to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larrère, C and Larrère, R 2000 Animal rearing as a contract? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12: 51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Neindre, P, Trillat, G, Sapa, J, Ménissier, F, Bonnet, J N and Chupin, J M 1995 Individual differences in docility in Limousin cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2249–2253CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lensink, B J, Boivin, X, Pradel, P, Le Neindre, P and Veissier, I 2000a Reducing veal calves’ reactivity to people by providing additional human contact. Journal of Animal Science 78: 1213–1218CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lensink, B J, Fernandez, X, Boivin, X, Pradel, P, Le Neindre, P and Veissier, I 2000b 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: 1219–1226CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lensink, B J, Veissier, I and Florand, L 2001 The farmers’ influence on calves’ behaviour, health and production of a veal unit. Animal Science 72: 105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensink, J, Boissy, A and Veissier, I 2000c The relationship between farmer's attitude and behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Annales de Zootechnie 49: 313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, D, Diorio, J, Tannenbaum, B, Caldji, C, Francis, D, Freedman, A, Sharma, S, Pearson, D, Plotsky, P M and Meaney, M J 1997 Maternal care, hippocampal glucocorticoid receptors, and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal responses to stress. Science 277: 1659–1661CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lorenz, K 1935 Der Kumpan in der Umwelt des Vogels. Zeitschrift Ornithology 83: 289–413 [Title translation: A friend in the birds’ world]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lott, D F and Hart, B L 1979 Applied ethology in a nomadic cattle culture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 5: 309–319Google Scholar
Lyons, D M, Price, E O and Moberg, G P 1988a Individual differences in temperament of domestic dairy goats: constancy and change. Animal Behaviour 3: 1323–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, D M, Price, E O and Moberg, G P 1988b Social modulation of pituitary-adrenal responsiveness and individual differences in behavior of young domestic goats. Physiology & Behavior 43: 451–458CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchant, J N, Whittaker, X and Broom, D M 2001 Vocalisations of the adult female domestic pig during a standard human approach test and their relationships with behavioural and heart rate measures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72: 23–39CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markowitz, T M, Dally, M R, Gursky, K and Price, E O 1998 Early handling increases lamb affinity for humans. Animal Behaviour 55: 573–587CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarland, D 1990 Dictionnaire du Comportement Animal. Editions Robert Laffont: Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
McMillan, F D 1999 Effects of human contact on animal health and well-being. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 215: 1592–1598Google ScholarPubMed
Miller, R M 1996 Behaviour of the horse. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 16: 240–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphey, R M, Moura Duarte, F A and Torres Penedo, M C 1980 Approachability of bovine cattle in pastures: breed comparisons and a breed χ treatment analysis. Behavior Genetics 10: 171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunez, J F, Ferre, P, Escorihuela, R M, Tobena, A and Fernandez-Teruel, A 1996 Effects of postnatal handling of rats on emotional, HPA-axis, and prolactin reactivity to novelty and conflict. Physiology & Behavior 60: 1355–1359CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, E O 1999 Behavioral development in animals undergoing domestication. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 245–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, E O and Thos, J 1980 Behavioral responses to short-term social isolation in sheep and goats. Applied Animal Ethology 6: 331–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, E O and Wallach, S J R 1990 Physical isolation of hand-reared Hereford bulls increases their aggressiveness toward humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 263–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renger, H 1975 Agressive Verhalten von Bullen dem Menschen gegenüber. Veterinary Medicine Dissertation, University of München, Germany [Title translation: Aggressive behaviours of bulls towards humans]Google Scholar
Rooney, N J and Bradshaw, J W S 2002 An experimental study of the effects of play upon the dog-human relationship. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooney, N J, Bradshaw, J W S and Robinson, I H 2000 A comparison of dog-dog and dog-human play behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 235–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, de Passillé, A M, Munksgaard, L and Tanida, H 2001 People as social actors in the world of farm animals. In: Keeling, L J and Gonyou, H W (eds) Social Behaviour in Farm Animals pp 353–372. CAB International: Wallingford, OxonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Taylor, A A and de Passillé, A M 1999 Domestic animals’ fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambraus, H H and Sambraus, D 1975 Prägung von Nutztieren auf Menschen. Zeitschrift Fur Tierpsychology 38: 1–17 [Title translation: Farm animals’ imprinting to humans]Google Scholar
Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K S, Stookey, J M and Welford, R 1997 Behavior of cattle during hot-iron and freeze branding and the effects on subsequent handling ease. Journal of Animal Science 75: 2064–2072CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, J P 1992 The phenomenon of attachment in human-nonhuman relationships. In: Davis, H and Balfour, D (eds) The Inevitable Bond: Examining Scientist-Animal Interactions pp 72–92. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Seabrook, M F 2001 The effect of the operational environment and operating protocols on the attitudes and behaviour of employed stockpersons. In: Hovi, M and Bouilhol, M (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd NAHWOA Workshop, Human-Animal Relationship: Stockmanship and Housing in Organic Livestock Systems pp 21–30. October 21-24 2000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. University of Reading: UKGoogle Scholar
Seabrook, M F and Bartle, N C 1992 Environmental factors influencing the production and welfare of farm animals — human factors. In: Phillips, C J C and Piggins, D (eds) Farm Animals and the Environment pp 111–130. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Stafford, K J, Mellor, D J and Gregory, N G 2002 Advances in animal welfare in New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 50: 17–21 (Suppl 3)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veissier, I, Boissy, A, Nowak, R, Orgeur, P and Poindron, P 1998 Ontogeny of social awareness in domestic herbivores. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57: 233–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Sarignac, C and Capdeville, J 1999 Les méthodes d'appréciation du bien-être des animaux d’élevage. INRA Productions Animales 12: 113–121 [Title translation: Assessment methods of farm animals’ welfare]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, J M and Stookey, J M 2000 Vocal behaviour in cattle: the animal's commentary on its biological processes and welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 15–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watts, J M and Stookey, J M 2001 The propensity of cattle to vocalise during handling and isolation is affected by phenotype. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar