Abstract: Behavioral ecologists have devoted considerable effort to identifying the sources of variation in individual reproductive success. Much of this work has focused on the characteristics of individuals, such as their sex and rank. However, many animals live in stable social groups and the fitness of individuals depends at least in part on the outcome of their interactions with other group members. For example, in many primate species, high dominance rank enhances access to resources and reproductive success. The ability to acquire and maintain high rank often depends on the availability and effectiveness of coalitionary support. Allies may be cultivated and coalitions may be reinforced by affiliative interactions such as grooming, food sharing, and tolerance. These findings suggest that if we want to understand the selective pressures that shape the social behavior of primates, it will be profitable to broaden our focus from the characteristics of individuals to the properties of the relationships that they form with others. The goal of this paper is to discuss a set of methods that can be used to quantify the properties of social relationships.

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: This experiment examines the cues used by cattle to discriminate between people, particularly the role played by facial cues. We trained and tested eight Holstein cows 5 days each week for 2 months. For each cow, we used two people, a rewarder and a non-rewarder, of different size and dressed in overalls of the same colour. The operant chamber was a large box within which stood the two people. The cow could see, smell and touch each person. A lever was placed in front of each person. When the cow pushed the lever in front of the rewarder, it received 75 g of concentrate and nothing when it pushed on the other one. For each test session, the cows made 10 choices. The placement of the people was determined randomly according to the Gellerman series. The success criterion was defined as at least eight correct choices out of 10 trials for two consecutive sessions (binomial law P<0.003). During the shaping, seven cows out of eight learned to press the lever to obtain the food. The cows were then tested in a series of 10 trials with only the rewarder present. Seven out of seven cows succeeded in reaching the success criterion. In experiment 1, both the rewarder and the non-rewarder were present and standing upright at normal height and in full view of the cow. Five out of seven cows achieved the success criterion. In experiment 2, the cows could see only the faces of the two people. None of the cows were able to reach the success criterion. In experiment 3, both people were present standing up and wearing identical masks that completely covered their heads. Five cows out of five achieved the success criterion. In experiment 4, we changed the relative height of the people. Five cows out of five succeeded when the two people stood so they were of equal height but with their faces visible. However, no cows succeeded when the people were both of equal height and had their faces covered. This study suggests that cows seem to use multiple cues to discriminate between people. Cows appear able to use either body height or the face to discriminate between people but use of the face alone is more difficult when the cows cannot see the rest of the body.

Abstract: Recent studies raise serious welfare concerns regarding the estimated 93.6 million horses, donkeys and mules in developing countries. Most equids are used for work in poor communities, and are commonly afflicted with wounds, poor body condition, respiratory diseases, parasites, dental problems, and lameness. Non-physical welfare problems, such as fear of humans, are also of concern. Interventions to improve working equine welfare aim to prioritise the conditions that cause the most severe impositions on the animals' subjectively experienced welfare, but data identifying which conditions these may be, are lacking. Here we describe a stage in the validation of behavioural welfare indicators that form part of a working equine welfare assessment protocol. Over 4 years, behavioural and physical data were collected from 5481 donkeys, 4504 horses, and 858 mules across nine developing countries. Behaviours included the animals' general alertness, and their responses to four human-interaction tests, using the unfamiliar observer as the human stimulus. Avoidance behaviours correlated significantly with each other across the human-interaction tests, with 21% of animals avoiding the observer, but they showed no associations with likely anthropogenic injuries. Over 13% of equids appeared [`]apathetic': lethargic rather than alert. Measures of unresponsiveness correlated with each other across the five tests, and were associated with poor body condition, abnormal mucous membrane colour, faecal soiling, eye abnormalities, more severe wounds, and older age, depending on the equine species. This suggests that working equids in poor physical health show an unresponsive behavioural profile, consistent with sickness behaviour, exhaustion, chronic pain, or depression-like states.

Abstract: Seven experiments were conducted on four miniature pigs to determine: (1) whether the pigs can discriminate between people wearing the same coloured clothing; (2) what cues they rely on if they could discriminate. For 2 weeks before the experiments began, the pigs were conditioned in a Y-maze to receive raisins from the rewarder wearing dark blue coveralls. They were then given the opportunity to choose the rewarder or non-rewarder in these experiments. Each session consisted of 20 trials. Successful discrimination was that the pig chose the rewarder at least 15 times in 20 trials (P<0.05: by χ2-test). In Experiment 1, both rewarder and non-rewarder wore dark blue coveralls. By 20 sessions, all pigs successfully identified the rewarder. In Experiment 2: (1) both wore coveralls of the same new colours or (2) one of them wore coveralls of new colours. They significantly preferred the rewarder even though the rewarder and/or non-rewarder wore coveralls of new colours. In Experiment 3, both wore dark blue coveralls but olfactory cues were obscured and auditory cues were not given. The pigs were able to identify the rewarder successfully irrespective of changing auditory and olfactory cues. In Experiment 4, both wore dark blue coveralls but covered part of their face and body in different ways. The correct response rate decreased when a part of the face and the whole body of the rewarder and non-rewarder were covered. In Experiment 5, both wore dark blue coveralls and changed their apparent body size by shifting sitting position. The correct response rate increased as the difference in body size between the experimenters increased. In Experiment 6, the distance between the experimenters and the pig was increased by 30 cm increments. The correct response rate of each pig decreased as the experimenters receded from the pig, but performance varied among the pigs. In Experiment 7, the light intensity of the experimental room was reduced from 550 to 80 lx and then to 20 lx. The correct response rate of each pig decreased with the reduction in light intensity, but all the pigs discriminated the rewarder from the non-rewarder significantly even at 20 lx. In conclusion, the pigs were able to discriminate between people wearing coveralls of the same colour after sufficient reinforcement. These results indicate that pigs are capable of using visual cues to discriminate between people.