Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:40:36.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human-animal interactions in agriculture and their impact on animal welfare and performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

P. H. Hemsworth
P. H. Hemsworth*
Affiliation:
Victorian Institute of Animal Science, 475 Mickleham Road, Attwood, Victoria 3049, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Human-animal interactions are a common feature of modern intensive farming systems and these interactions may have marked consequences on animal productivity and welfare. Research in agriculture has shown interrelationships between the stockperson’s attitudes and behaviour and the behaviour, productivity and welfare of farm animals and the following model of human-animal interactions in agriculture has been proposed. Because a stockperson’s behaviour towards animals is largely under volitional control, this behaviour is strongly influenced by the attitudes that the stockperson holds about the animals. These attitudes and consequent behaviours predominantly affect the animal’s fear of humans which, in turn, affects the animal’s performance and welfare. The mechanism whereby fear affects performance and welfare appears to be through a chronic stress response. The risk to welfare also arises if the stockperson’s attitude and behaviour towards the animals are negative because the stockperson’s commitment to the surveillance of, and the attendance to, welfare issues is likely to be highly questionable.

Recent research in the pig industry has shown that a training programme targeting the key attitudes and behaviour of stockpersons produced improvements in stockperson attitudes and behaviour and animal behaviour and productivity. These results indicate the potential to improve animal productivity and welfare by targeting the stockperson’s attitudes and behaviour for improvement. Techniques which may be useful in this regard include staff selection and training procedures addressing these important human attributes.

Type
Research Article
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 20: Animal Choices , 1997 , pp. 27 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 1997

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

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Barnett, J. L., Hemsworth, P. H. and Hand, A. M. 1983. The effect of chronic stress on some blood parameters in the pig. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 273–277.Google Scholar
Barnett, J. L., Hemsworth, P. H., Hennessy, D. P., McCallum, T. M. and Newman, E. A. 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: 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J. L., Hemsworth, P. H. and Newman, E. A. 1992. Fear of humans and its relationships with productivity in laying hens at commercial farms. British Poultry Science 33: 699–710.Google Scholar
Boissy, A. and Bouissou, M. F. 1988. Effects of early handling on heifers’ subsequent reactivity to humans and to unfamiliar situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 259–273.Google Scholar
Boivin, X., LeNeindre, P. and Chupin, J. M. 1992. Establishment of cattle-human relationships. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32:325–335.Google Scholar
Bredbacka, P. 1988. Relationships between fear, welfare and productive traits in caged White Leghorn hens. Proceedings of the international congress on applied ethology in farm animals, pp. 74–79.Google Scholar
Buckland, R. B., Goldrosen, A. and Bernon, D. E. 1974. Effect of blood sampling by cardiac puncture on subsequent body weight of broilers and S.C. White Leghorn replacement pullets. Poultry Science 53: 1256–1258.Google Scholar
Coleman, G. C., Hemsworth, P. H., Hay, M. and Cox, M. 1996. Predicting stockperson behaviour towards pigs from attitudinal and job-related variables and empathy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science In press.Google Scholar
Collins, J. W. and Siegel, P. B. 1987. Human handling, flock size and responses to an E.coli challenge in young chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19:183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cransberg, P. H. 1996. The relationship between human factors and the productivity and welfare of commercial broiler chickens. Master of Behavioural Science thesis, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
English, P. R. 1991. Stockmanship, empathy and pig behaviour. Pig Veterinary Journal 26: 56–66.Google Scholar
Freeman, B. M. and Manning, A. C. C. 1979. Stressor effects of handling on the immature fowl. Research in Veterinary Science 26: 223–226.Google Scholar
Gonyou, H. W., Hemsworth, P. H. and Barnett, J. L. 1986. Effects of frequent interactions with humans on growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 269–278.Google Scholar
Gross, W. B. and Siegel, P. B. 1979. Adaptations of chickens to their handler, and experimental results. Avian Diseases 23: 708–714.Google Scholar
Gross, W. B. and Siegel, P. B. 1980. Effects of early environmental stresses on chicken body weight, antibody response to RBC antigens, feed efficiency and response to fasting. Avian Diseases 24: 549–579.Google Scholar
Gross, W. B. and Siegel, P. B. 1982. Influences of sequences of environmental factors on the response of chickens to fasting and to Staphylococcus aureus infection. American Journal of Veterinary Research 43:137–139.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H. and Barnett, J. L. 1989. Relationships between fear of humans, productivity and cage position of laying hens. British Poultry Science 30: 505–518.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H. and Barnett, J. L. 1991. The effects of aversively handling pigs, either individually or in groups, on their behaviour, growth and corticosteroids. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L. and Coleman, G. J. 1993. The human-animal relationship in agriculture and its consequences for the animal. Animal Welfare 2: 33–51.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L., Coleman, G. J. and Hansen, C. 1989. 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. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P. Hv Barnett, J. L. 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: 396–403.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L. and Hansen, C. 1986. The influence of handling by humans on the behaviour, reproduction and corticosteroids of male and female pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15:303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L. and Hansen, C. 1987. The influence of inconsistent handling on the behaviour, growth and corticosteroids of young pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17: 245–252.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Brand, A. and Willems, P. J. 1981b. The behavioural response of sows to the presence of human beings and their productivity. Livestock Production Science 8: 67–74.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Coleman, G. J. and Barnett, J. L. 1994b. Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpeople towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39:349–362.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Coleman, G. C., Barnett, J. L. and Jones, R. B. 1994a. Behavioural responses of humans and the productivity of commercial broiler chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41:101–114.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Coleman, G. C., Cransberg, P. H. and Barnett, J. L. 1996a. Human factors and the productivity and welfare of commercial broiler chickens. Research report on Chicken Meat Research and Development Council project, Attwood, Australia.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Price, E. O. and Bogwardt, R. 1996b. Behavioural responses of domestic pigs and cattle to humans and novel stimuli. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 50:43–56.Google Scholar
Jones, R. B. 1993. Reduction of the domestic chick’s fear of humans by regular handling and related treatments. Animal Behaviour 46: 991–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Klasing, K. C. 1985. Influence of stress on protein metabolism. In Animal stress (ed. Moberg, G. P.), pp. 269–280. American Physiological Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
Moberg, G. P. 1985. Influence of stress on reproduction: measure of well-being. In Animal stress (ed. Moberg, G. P.), pp. 245–267. American Physiological Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Google Scholar
Paterson, A. M. and Pearce, G. P. 1989. Boar-induced puberty in gilts handled pleasantly or unpleasantly during rearing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22:225–233.Google Scholar
Pearce, G. P., Paterson, A. M. and Pearce, A. N. 1989. The influence of pleasant and unpleasant handling and the provision of toys on the growth and behaviour of male pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23:27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravel, A., D’Allaire, S. D., Bigras-Poulin, M. and Ward, R. 1996. Personality traits of stockpeople working in farrowing units on two types of farms in Quebec. Proceedings of 14th congress of the International Pig Veterinary Society, 7-10 July, Bologna, Italy C.Google Scholar
Reichmann, K. G., Barram, K. M., Brock, I. J. and Standfast, N. F. 1978. Effects of regular handling and blood sampling by wing vein puncture on the performance of broilers and pullets. British Poultry Science 19: 97–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seabrook, M. F. 1972a. A study to determine the influence of the herdsman’s personality on milk yield. Journal of Agriculture Labour Science 1:45–59.Google Scholar
Seabrook, M. F. 1972b. A study of the influence of the cowman’s personality and job satisfaction on milk yield of dairy cows. Joint conference of the British Society for Agriculture Labour Science and the Ergonomics Research Society, National College of Agricultural Engineering, UK, September 1972.Google Scholar
Seabrook, M. 1994. The effect of production systems on the behaviour and attitudes of stockpersons. Fourth zodiac symposium, European Association of Animal Production publication no. 67, pp. 252–258.Google Scholar
Seabrook, M. F. and Bartle, N. C. 1992. The practical implications of animals’ responses to man. Animal Production 54:458 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Siegel, H. S. and Kampen, M. van. 1984. Energy relationships in growing chickens given daily injections of corticosterone. British Poultry Science 25: 477–485.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. I. 1976. Growth in the Hubbard broiler: increased size following early handling. Developmental Psychobiology 9:459–464.Google Scholar