Abstract: The human-animal relationship is an important factor when considering animal welfare at herd level. In the present study, two behavioural tests for the on-farm assessment of the human-animal relationship at herd level of dairy cows housed in loose housing cubicle systems were evaluated with respect to inter-observer reliability, test-retest reliability, effect of familiarity of test person as well as inter-correlation of the two tests. In a voluntary animal approach (VAA) test, the number of cows and the latencies to approach and touch a stationary test person was measured. In an avoidance (AV) test, the cows' avoidance reactions to an approaching test person were categorised. A first study was carried out in 12 commercial Danish and Austrian dairy farms. On each farm, both behaviour tests were carried out on the same day and repeated within 4-5 days. For each test, cows were tested by both an unfamiliar and a familiar test person (the stock-person) and two observers simultaneously registered the animals' test responses. The inter-observer reliability of both behavioural tests was found to be high (VAA: 2.5-m approach r=0.98 (P<0.001) and touch r=0.97 (P<0.001); AV: Kappa coefficientweighted=0.886 (prevalence index for flight distance>=2 m is 0.636)). The cows at herd level showed shortest latency for touching an unfamiliar test person on the first test day (P=0.006). Further, the AV test had a high test-retest reliability (Kappa coefficientweighted=0.503 (prevalence index for flight distance>=2 m is -0.660)) and results indicated no effect of familiarity of test person (Kappa coefficientweighted=0.463 (prevalence index for flight distance>=2 m is -0.677)). In a second study, the correlation between the two behavioural tests (similar measures) was evaluated. On each of 10 commercial Danish dairy farms with loose housing cubicle systems at four repeated sessions, both behaviour tests were carried out on the same day. For each test cows were tested by the stock-person. The VAA and AV tests at herd level were highly correlated (rs=-0.84; P=0.002). The results suggest that the AV test is valid and applicable for on-farm assessment of the human-animal relationship at herd level. This accounts only partly for the VAA test, which seem to be more unclear regarding motivation for the animals' approach behaviour.

Abstract: Handling is a crucial component of the human-horse relationship. Here, we report data from an experiment conducted to assess and compare the effect of two training methods. Two groups of six Welsh mares were trained during four sessions of 50 min, one handled with traditional exercises (halter leading, grooming/brushing, lifting feet, lunging and pseudo-saddling (using only girth and saddle pad) and the second group with natural horsemanship exercises (desensitization, yielding to body pressure, lunging and free-lunging). Emotional reactivity (ER) and the human-horse relationship (HHR) were assessed both prior to and following handling. A social isolation test, a neophobia test and a bridge test were used to assess ER. HHR was assessed through test of spontaneous approach to, and forced approach by, an unknown human. Horses' ER decreased after both types of handling as indicated by decreases in the occurrence of whinnying during stressful situations. Head movement (jerk/shake) was the most sensitive variable to handling type. In the spontaneous approach tests, horses in the traditional handling group showed higher latencies to approach a motionless person after handling than did the natural horsemanship group. Our study suggests that natural horsemanship exercises could be more efficient than traditional exercises for improving horses' HHR.

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: I investigated the behavioural background of the way horses learn to follow humans in the “round pen technique” suggested by “horse whisperers” as a gentle method for initial horse training. Though the practicability of this technique has been adequately demonstrated in the past, the horses' behaviour during such training has not yet been documented in detail. In a riding arena, horses, that did not follow the trainer immediately, were chased away so that they galloped around the trainer. Galloping horses showed specific behaviour such as turning the ear to the trainer, chewing, licking, and stretching head and throat downwards. In subsequent trials horses needed to be chased for less time and finally followed immediately, even when conditions were changed or the trainer was replaced by another person. This suggests that horses learn to follow in this particular situation and also show some generalisation. However, following did not occur on a pasture even after several successful trials in the riding arena.