First Virtual Global Conference on Organic Beef Cattle Production
September, 02 to October,15 - 2002 — — Via Internet
THE HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONSHIP IN ANIMAL
PRODUCTION
Dr. B.J. Lensink
Institut Supérieur d’Agriculture Lille
41 rue du Port, 59046 Lille cedex
France
1
Introduction
Ever since domestication of our farm animals began, the relationship between the stockman and the
animals has always been close. For centuries, the relationship between the stockman and the animal
has always been a symbiotic one, with for example cattle being dependent on man for the provision of
shelter, nutrition and general care while man in turn benefited from milk, dung for fuel or fertiliser, and
heat production (English et al., 1992). Farms were most of the time very small, and complete families
lived from and with a couple of animals, the family and their cattle sharing often adjacent parts of the
same accommodation. Consequently, the contact between the stockperson or the family and the animals
has always been very close. Nowadays, especially since World War II, farm practice has changed, the
main aim being for most of the countries being self-sufficient in agricultural production. This has led to
an increase in the size of the farms, which in the case of animal production, reducing the opportunity for
contact between the stockpersons and their animals. Furthermore, labour-saving technology has been
introduced (e.g. electronic feeders, milking robots) with a substantial reduction in (positive) contact time
between the stockpersons and their animals. On the other hand, the aversive tasks associated with farm
animal management have remained, such as transport, medication, vaccination. As a consequence, the
contacts that remain might lead to only negative experiences for the animals, leading to fear reactions
towards humans, with possible consequences on the animal’s welfare and production.
In this paper, we will briefly describe the type of interactions that can exist between the stockperson
and his animals, indicate its possible consequences on the welfare of the animal and the production of
the farm, and describe the origin of human behaviour towards animals. We will conclude with a note on
the human-animal relationship in organic animal production.
2
The contact between the stockperson and the animals and the consequences on the animal’s behaviour
On a farm, the stockperson can have different physical and non-physical interactions with the
animals. The physical (inter)actions are often made with the hands and the arms, like touching, stroking,
slapping, hitting, or can include the hands, for example holding a stick to hit an animal. The non-physical
(inter)action can be of different kinds, like voice (intensity, intonation), movements with the body, smell,
noise (a man approaching) (Seabrook et Bartle, 1992). Often a mix of these actions is found when
the stockperson is working with the animals during feeding, milking, surveillance, medical treatments,
moving from one place to another etc. Lensink et al. (2000a), in their study on commercial veal farms
with calves housed in individual crates, described 15 different physical and non-physical contacts from
Editored by:
University of Contestado - UnC - Concordia Unit - Concordia - SC - Brazil
Embrapa Pantanal - Corumba - MS - Brazil
c
UnC
– Concordia – Brazil – 10th September 2002
1
First Virtual Global Conference on Organic Beef Cattle Production
September, 02 to October,15 - 2002 — — Via Internet
the stockperson towards the calves during milk feeding. The frequency of the stockperson’s contacts
with the calves was 30 interactions per 100 calves, with a range of 0 to 75 per 100 calves. It is the
nature and the frequency of these contacts that determine greatly the animal’s reaction towards the
stockperson and to man general.
Several research projects, mostly conducted on animals kept under intensive conditions (pigs,
poultry, veal), have demonstrated the physical contacts qualified as "negative" (hits, slaps) by the
observer, induce a withdrawal behaviour of the animals towards the stockperson, often interpreted as
"fear". For example, pigs receiving a shock from an electric prodder or being hit each time they approach
a man, approach less often and more slowly that man than pigs not receiving this treatment. (Gonyou et
al., 1986 ; Hemsworth et al., 1986 ; Paterson et Pearce, 1989). Similar results have been found in veal
calves (de Passillé et al., 1996; Lensink et al., 2000b). Physical contacts qualified as "positive" (touching
carefully, stroking) reduce the animals tendency to avoid man and increases its tendency to interact with
him (pigs: Gonyou et al., 1986 ; Tanida et al., 1995; veal calves: Lensink et al., 2000b, c).
Non-physical interactions are also important for the animals’ reactions towards man. The fact that the
animals see the stockperson during feeding (something rewarding for the animals) potentially reduces
their avoidance of the stockperson and can increase their tendency to interact with him. Some of the
effects of "positive" contacts with animals on their behaviour could be explained by the fact that they are
often associated with feeding. Jago et al. (1999) demonstrated that calves having received milk from
a non-interacting human approached more easily an unknown person than calves that received milk
without human intervention. This treatment seemed even more efficient than giving "positive" contacts
(stroking, letting suck the fingers) outside feeding time. Furthermore, in poultry, regular visual presence
of a stockperson reduced the avoidance responses of the animals towards man (Jones, 1993 ; Barnett
et al., 1994).
3
The consequences of the contact between the
stockperson and the animals on the animals’ stress
responses
Fear responses following "negative" contacts with man can not only induce avoidance behaviour of
the animals but also physiological stress responses. Pigs having received "negative" contacts (electric
shock when approaching man) show a higher increase in blood cortisol levels when a man enters their
home pen compared to pigs having received "positive" contacts (gentle stroking) (Hemsworth et al.,
1986). In a similar way, Boissy et Bouissou (1988) have demonstrated that heifers used to regular
non-aversive contacts with humans (leading by a rope, stroking) showed a lower increase in blood
cortisol levels and heart rate following some common management practices (capture, moving from one
place to another) than heifers not having received these non-aversive contacts. Dairy cows badly treated
by a person (electric shocks, hits) also demonstrate a higher heart rate during milking when this person
is present compared to other, non-treated, cows (Rushen et al., 1999). These results demonstrate that
a stockperson (or man in general) can be at the origin of acute stress responses. Regular, long-term
contacts with a stockperson can also have consequences on chronic stress responses. Hemsworth et
al. (1996b) found elevated adrenal weights of pigs having received "negative" contacts, considered as a
sign of a chronic stress state for the animal.
4
The consequences of the contact between the stockperson and the animals on animal production
The interactions between the stockperson and the animals can also have consequences on the
productivity of the animals. Generally, "negative" contacts (hits, slaps, shocks) reduce live weight gain of
pigs (Gonyou et al., 1986 ; Hemsworth et Barnett, 1991 ; Hemsworth et al., 1996a) and poultry (Gross
et Siegel, 1980 ; Jones et Hughes, 1981). They also induce a decrease in milk production in dairy cows
(Rushen et al., 1999) and reduce the fertility in sows (Hemsworth et al., 1986). However, although they
find a clear relationship between the contacts the animals received and their behaviour towards humans,
2
First Virtual Global Conference on Organic Beef Cattle Production
September, 02 to October,15 - 2002 — — Via Internet
certain researchers did not find any effect of "negative" or "positive" contacts on the productivity of the
animal (pigs : Paterson et Pearce, 1989, 1992 ; Pearce et al., 1989; veal calves: Lensink et al., 2000c,
2001b).
The contact between the stockperson and the animal can also have an effect on the meat quality.
In their study on commercial veal farms, Lensink et al. (2001a) found that calves originating from
stockpersons behaving "positively" with them had lower pH levels of the meat and showed more often
"light" meat (appreciated by the consumers) than calves originating from stockpersons behaving more
"negatively" (Table 1). The origin lies probably in the effects of human contact on the animal’s behaviour.
Calves originating from "positive" stockpersons were easier to load and unload for transport and showed
lower heart rates during handling compared to calves originating from "negative" stockpersons (Table
1). This indicates lower energy expenditure during handling and transport before slaughter, increasing
therefore the glycolytic potential of the muscles important for the maturation of the meat.
Table 1 — The influence of stockperson’s behaviour on calves’ reactions to transport
and quality of veal meat (adapted from Lensink et al., 2001).
a
Effort to load calf
Heart rate during loading (beats/min)
Heart rate during unloading (beats/min)
Carcass weight (kg)
Carcass colour b
pH at 24 h of SM musclec
a
b
c
Stockperson behaviour
Positive
Negative
SEM
0.45
0.59
0.01
199.9
206.0
18.4
185.6
193.0
22.7
114.2
114.8
4.9
14.5
23
5.42
5.45
0.001
P-value
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.85
0.02
0.07
Effort to load = (frequency of pushes, slaps or shouts by the truck driver) / distance from crate to
truck.
Percentage of carcasses classified as pink or dark pink (not desired) following a 4-point scale: 1 =
white; 2 = pale pink; 3 = pink; 4 = dark pink.
SM muscle = Semimembranosus muscle.
Through his behaviour towards the animals, the stockperson plays an important role in the welfare
and the productivity of the animals. In order to improve the welfare of the animals and potentially
improve also the productivity, we have to understand better the origin of the human behaviour towards
the animals. We have to look mainly on the psychological side, attitudes and personality traits of
the stockperson being important components of the human behaviour towards animals or any general
subject.
5
Attitudes or personality traits of the stockperson and
his behaviour towards animals
Research in pig industry, trying to identify factors determining stockpersons’ behaviour towards
animals, revealed that stockpersons’ behaviour is most closely related with the attitude they hold towards
animals (Coleman et al., 1998; Hemsworth et al., 1989). Attitude is hereby defined as a ’psychological
tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour’
(Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). In these studies, stockpersons with a positive attitude towards positive
behaviour towards pigs were found to show a lower percentage of negative contacts when working with
them (Hemsworth et al., 1989). This body of research has been primarily based on Azjen and Fishbein’s
"theory of reasoned action" (Fishbein, 1980). According to this theory, a person’s intention to perform a
behaviour results from his/her attitude towards that behaviour, combined with subjective norms. In turn,
attitudes are linked with beliefs that the behaviour leads to a certain outcome and by the evaluation of
3
First Virtual Global Conference on Organic Beef Cattle Production
September, 02 to October,15 - 2002 — — Via Internet
these outcomes. The model furthermore proposes that other factors like personality and demographic
variables (e.g. age, gender, education) modify indirectly someone’s behaviour through their effect on
attitudes. However, external factors could also affect someone’s behaviour directly. A stockperson might
intend to interact individually with all the animals, but work pressure, due to a high number of animals to
take care of, might prevent him/her from interacting with them.
The extensive and important work of Hemsworth and colleagues on the human-animal relationship
in especially the pig production (for review see Hemsworth and Coleman, 1998), have led these
researchers to develop a model which aims to explain the relationship between farmers’ attitudes, their
behaviour towards animals, the welfare of the animals and the productivity of the animals. According to
their model (Figure 1), the stockperson’s attitudes influence his/her behaviour towards his/her animals.
Negative attitudes will lead to high frequency of negative interactions with animals (hits, slaps, shouting).
These negative interactions will lead to fear reactions of the animals, fear reactions shown in a wide
range of situations in which humans can be present. A state of "chronic stress" can be induced in
these animals following a repetition of negative acts by the stockperson. This state of fear, which
decreases the growth and reproduction performances of the animals, is therefore at the origin of the
decrease of production results found on certain farms. In counterpart, the animals’ fear reactions and
the stockperson’s behaviour can reinforce the (negative) attitudes that are at the origin of these fear
reactions and behaviour.
Figure 1 — Model explaining the stockperson’s influence on the welfare of the animals
and their productivity (Hemsworth and Coleman, 1998).
In a study performed on veal production in France (Lensink et al., 2000a, 2001b), the attitudes were
measured of veal farmers towards their calves. In Europe, most of the veal farmers are affiliated with
a veal company, which provides them with calves, foodstuff and management advice. Despite these
standardised conditions, substantial differences are found in growth of calves or mortality between units
affiliated with the same veal company. According to the theory of Hemsworth and Coleman (1998), this
variability in productivity between farms might be due to the farmers’ behaviour towards their animals,
which in turn depends on their attitude towards animals. In this study, fifty farms affiliated with the same
veal company were studied. The farmers’ behaviour with the calves was observed during one morning
meal, and the farmers were asked to fill in questionnaires designed to measure their attitude towards
calves, and to obtain information about their background (e.g. age, gender, level of education). The
productivity results (daily weight gain, feed conversion, and mortality rates) were obtained from the veal
company. The study showed that the frequency of gentle contacts was positively correlated with the
description the farmers made of their behaviour with the calves and their beliefs about the sensitivity
of calves, confirming therefore the link between attitudes and behaviour towards animals. However,
other variables showed to be important. For example, female farmers showed a more positive behaviour
towards the calves, had more positive beliefs about the importance of contacts with calves, and made a
more positive description of their own behaviour. Furthermore, stockpersons on bigger units showed
more positive beliefs about the importance of stockperson’s behaviour on the success of the farm,
despite giving less positive contacts to the calves. These results indicate that other factors might be
important like gender or work load which can influence the link between attitudes and behaviour.
4
First Virtual Global Conference on Organic Beef Cattle Production
September, 02 to October,15 - 2002 — — Via Internet
Coleman and Hemsworth have taken into account mainly the cognitive and behavioural components
of attitudes. Other researchers have studied the more emotional side of the stockperson (e.g. empathy)
or the personality of the stockperson (Seabrook, 1972, 1984 ; English et al., 1991). Seabrook and
colleagues studied the relationship between personality traits of the stockperson and productivity of dairy
herds in the United Kingdom. High and low-producing stockpersons were found to differ in a number
of personality attributes, with e.g. high producing stockpersons reported as being: "not easy going",
"patient", "unsociable", "independently minded", "not talkative", or "uncooperative". These studies did
not clearly indicate what the relationship exactly was between the personality and the productivity
differences, if these personality differences had their effect by the stockperson’s contacts with the
animals, or whether they were associated with differences in technical competence or management
practices.
6
Human-animal relationship in organic animal production
As pointed out, the human-animal relationship is very important in conventional animal production,
affecting both the welfare of the animals and the farm productivity (and therefore the economic) results.
What about the human-animal relationship in organic production? The organic production in Europe has
to deal with European legislation (document 399R1804, 1998), which states that "systematic operations
which lead to stress, harm, disease or the suffering of animals during the production, handling, transport
and slaughtering stages should be reduced to a minimum". This is clearly too little to really define a
clear relationship between stockpersons and their animals.
At first glance, the organic animal production seems not that different concerning the human-animal
relationship. Basically the same handling procedures are applied to the animals in which humans are
involved, like feeding, moving animals, milking. . . However, probably less medical treatments will be
given to the animals because of a better animal health originating from organic farming "demanding
less" from the animals. These medical treatments can be considered as often "negative" to the animals,
including generally restraint of animal and application of injections with medicaments. Therefore, organic
farming could present a potential benefit for the human-animal relationship by lowering the animal’s fear
of humans. However, Boivin et al. (2000) pointed out that organic productions systems tend to be
more extensive, which minimises the contact between the animals and the stockperson, especially in
outdoor conditions. This might result in increased aggressiveness and handling problems as found for
outdoor-reared calves, who showed a heart rate that was significantly higher when a human approached
and touched them and showed more aggressive acts towards the human, compared to indoor-housed
calves (Boivin et al., 1994). It is probably necessary to provide positive contacts early in life and regular
presence during the whole life of the animal to avoid these handling problems. Furthermore, a genetic
basis exists for the animal response to human and there is a possibility to select animals on these
criteria. As pointed out Boivin et al. (2000), in organic farming, the use of local, often rare breeds might
interfere with possible handling problems. It can be imagined that the local breeds are well adapted to
the sometimes harsh conditions in certain areas, but that these animals have not always been selected
on their reactions to humans. Therefore, care should be taken with the choice of the animals and its
possible effect on human-animal relationship.
7
References
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.
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.
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,
115-122.
5
First Virtual Global Conference on Organic Beef Cattle Production
September, 02 to October,15 - 2002 — — Via Internet
Boivin, X., Lensink, B.J., and Veissier, I., 2000. The farmer and the animal: a double mirror. In:
Human-animal relationship: stockmanship and housing in organic livestock systems. Proceedings
of the 3rd NAHWOA workshop Clermont-Ferrand (France), 21-24 October 2000, pp. 7-15,
University of Reading.
Coleman, G.J., Hemsworth, P.H., and Hay, M., 1998. Predicting stockperson behaviour towards pigs
from attitudinal and job-related variables and empathy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58,
63-75.
Eagly, A.H., and Chaiken, S., 1993. The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch College
Publishers, Fort Worth, TX.
English, P.R., 1991. Stockmanship, empathy and pig behaviour. Pig Veternary Journal 26, 56-66.
English, P.R., Burgess, G., Segundo, R., and Dunne, J., 1992. Stockmanship: improving the care of the
pig and other livestock. Farming Press Books, Wharfedale Road, Ipswich, UK, pp. 190.
Fishbein, M.A., 1980. Theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications. In: H.E. Howe
Jr., M.M. Page (eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Lincoln University of Nebraska Press,
Vol. 27, pp. 65-116.
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.
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.
Hemsworth, P.H., and Barnett, J.L., 1991. The effects of aversively handling pigs either individually
housed or in groups on their behaviour, growth and corticosteroids. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science 30, 61-72.
Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., and Campbell, R.G., 1996a. A study of the relative aversiveness of a
new daily injection procedure for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 389-401.
Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Coleman G.J., and Hansen, C., 1989. A study of the relationships
between attitudinal and behavioural profiles of stockpersons and the level of fear of humans and
reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23, 301-314.
Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., and Hansen, H., 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.
Hemsworth, P.H., and Coleman, G.J., 1998. A model of stockperson-animal interactions and their
implications for animals. In: Human-Livestock interactions: the stockperson and the productivity
and welfare of intensively farmed animals (ed. P.H. Hemsworth and G.J. Coleman), pp. 91-106.
CAB International, New York.
Hemsworth, P.H., Verge, J., and Coleman, G.J., 1996b. 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, 71-82.
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, 137-151.
Jones, R.B., 1993. Reduction of the domestic chick’s fear of humans by regular handling and related
treatments. Animal Behavior 46, 991-998.
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.
Lensink, B.J., Boissy, A., and Veissier, I., 2000a. The relationship between farmer’s attitude and
behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Annales de Zootechnie, 43, 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, p.
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 quality of veal meat. Journal
of Animal Science 78, p. 1219-1226.
Lensink, B.J., Fernandez, X., Cozzi, G., Florand, L., and Veissier, I., 2001a. The influence of farmers’
behaviour towards calves on animals’ responses to transport and quality of veal meat. Journal of
Animal Science, 79, 642-652.
6
First Virtual Global Conference on Organic Beef Cattle Production
September, 02 to October,15 - 2002 — — Via Internet
Lensink, B.J., Veissier, I., and Florand, L., 2001b. The farmer’s influence on calves’ behaviour, health
and production of a veal unit. Animal Science 72, 1, 105-117.
de Passillé, A.M., Rushen, J., Ladewig, J., and Petherick, C., 1996. Dairy calves’ discrimination of
people based on previous handling. Journal of Animal Science 74, 969-974.
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.
Paterson, A.M., and Pearce, G.P., 1992. Growth, response to humans and corticosteroids in male
pigs housed individually and subjected to pleasant, unpleasant or minimal handling during rearing.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34, 315-328.
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.
Rushen, J., de Passillé, A.M.B., and Munksgaard, L., 1999. Fear of people by cows and effects on milk
yield, behavior and heart rate at milking. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 720-727.
Seabrook, M.F., 1972. A study to determine the influence of the herdman’s personality on milk yield.
Journal of Agricultural Labour Science, 1, 45-59.
Seabrook, M.F., 1984. The psychological interaction between the stockman and his animals and its
influence on performance of pigs and dairy cows. Veternary Record, 115, 84-87.
Seabrook, M.F., and Bartle, N.C., 1992. Human factors. Dans : Phillips, C., andPiggins, D. (Eds.). Farms
Animals and the Environment. pp. 111-125. CAB International, Wellingford, U.K.
Tanida, H., Miura, A., Tanaka, T., and Yoshimoto, T., 1995. Behavioural response to humans in
individually handled weanling pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42, 249-259.
7