Abstract: The present paper focuses on six main issues. First, we briefly explain why an increased understanding of the human-animal relationship (HAR) is an essential component of any strategy intended to improve the welfare of farmed animals and their stockpersons. Second, we list the main internal and external factors that can influence the nature of the relationship and the interactions between human beings and farm animals. Third, we argue that the numerous tests that have been used to assess the HAR fall into three main categories (stationary human, moving human, handling/restraint), according to the degree of human involvement. Fourth, the requirements that any test of HAR must fulfil before it can be considered effective, and the ways in which the tests can be validated are discussed. Fifth, the various types of test procedures that have been used to assess the HAR in a range of farmed species are reviewed and critically discussed. Finally, some research perspectives that merit further attention are shown. The present review embraces a range of farmed animals. Our primary reasons for including a particular species were: whether or not general interest has been expressed in its welfare and its relationship with humans, whether relevant literature was available, and whether it is farmed in at least some European countries. Therefore, we include large and small ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats), pigs, poultry (chickens), fur animals (foxes, mink) and horses. Although horses are primarily used for sport, leisure or therapy they are farmed as draught, food or breeding animals in many countries. Literature on the HAR in other species was relatively scarce so they receive no further mention here.

Abstract: Differences in behavioural characteristics between individuals of the same species are often described as being due to the temperament of the individuals. These differences can have enormous implications for welfare with some individuals apparently being able to adapt to environmental challenge more easily than others. Such differences have resulted in animals often being described as either `active' copers, which try to escape from or remove an aversive stimulus, or `passive' copers, which show no outward signs of a situation being aversive, thus, appearing to be unaffected. Tests previously developed to assess the temperament of animals have been criticised for several reasons. Behaviour is often recorded and categorised using methods that are not objective and tests are generally carried out once with no consideration of whether or not behavioural responses are consistent over time. This study takes these factors into account. The behaviour of 33 horses was recorded in three types of test--an arena test, response to a person and response to an object. In order to test whether or not responses were consistent over time, the tests were repeated three times with an average of 9 days between trials. Test results were validated using responses from questionnaires completed by the farm team leader. The data were analysed using an initial principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis. The horses were found to behave consistently over the three trials in their responses in the arena test. The responses to the person test and the object test were similar to each other; however, these responses were not consistent over trials. The behaviour in the arena test was unable to be used to make a prediction of behaviour in the person and object tests and vice versa. The responses shown by the horses did not enable them to be categorised as either active or passive copers. Behavioural responses in the tests were not predictive of the response to a startle test (water spray), nor could they be used to predict status or response to being reintroduced to the group after testing. There was no relationship between the responses in the tests and the ratings given by the farm team leader. It was concluded that horses vary widely in their responses to artificial behavioural tests, with only the responses to an open-field arena test being consistent over time, and therefore, the only type of test which can indicate some core factor of temperament.

Abstract: Meeting the psychological needs of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) can be a challenge given their aggressiveness on the one hand and the complexity of their social lives on the other. It is unclear how to balance the need to provide opportunities for species-appropriate behavior against potential risks of injury chimpanzees may inflict on each other. This study evaluates the suggestion that simpler social environments protect chimpanzees from wounding. Over a two-year period all visible injuries to 46 adult males, 64 adult females, and 25 immature chimpanzees were recorded at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center. Approximately half of the subjects were mother-reared, and the rest were nursery-reared. Housing included compounds containing about 20 chimpanzees, interconnected indoor-outdoor runs for groups of up to 12 individuals, and smaller indoor-outdoor runs for pairs and trios. Annual wounding rates were calculated for serious wounds (extensive injuries and all those requiring veterinary intervention) as well as for minor wounds. Compound-housed chimpanzees incurred the highest level of minor wounding, but serious wounding levels were not affected by housing condition. Even with a period of dominance instability and elevated levels of wounding in one compound, compound chimpanzees were not injured more than those in smaller social groups over the long term. Nursery-reared females in moderate-sized groups were wounded more than mother-reared females. Also, nursery-reared males and females were wounded less often when paired with mother-reared companions. Overall, this study indicates that maintaining chimpanzees in pairs and trios would not be an effective means for reducing injuries. The management of wounding in chimpanzee colonies is influenced more by the sex and rearing composition of a colony.