Abstract: A previously described (Windschnurer et al., 2009) avoidance distance test was used to assess animals’ fear of humans in order to quantify the human–animal relationship (HAR). This study investigated the influence of the dominant and flightiest animals within a group on the responsiveness of animals during the avoidance distance test. Eighty-eight pregnant heifers comprised of four different genotypes were used (22 animals per genotype): Limousin × Holstein-Friesian, Limousin × Simmental, Charolais × Limousin, and Charolais × Simmental. Sixty of the 88 heifers were group housed (n = 5) into 12 pens with 3 pens per breed, while 28 heifers were singly housed (seven heifers per breed). A reactivity test was performed on days 10, 18, 25 and 30 post-housing on the singly housed heifers, and then on the group housed heifers, on the same days, to calculate a reactivity score. On days 33 and 37 flight and dominance tests, respectively, were performed to identify the flightiest and the dominant animal within each group. On day 41, an avoidance test, measuring both the avoidance distance towards a familiar and an unfamiliar human, was performed on all heifers. No difference (P > 0.05) in reactivity scores was found between the genotypes, between pens for the group housed heifers or between singly housed and group housed heifers (P = 0.28). The avoidance distance (AD) of singly (S) housed heifers towards a familiar (F) (ADSF) human was shorter (P < 0.001) than the avoidance distance of group (G) housed heifers towards an unfamiliar human (ADSU). The ADSF and ADGF were correlated with the ADSU and ADGU (R = 0.87 for singly housed heifers; R = 0.61 for group housed heifers, P < 0.001). For the singly housed heifers, no correlation was observed between reactivity score and ADSF (R = 0.36, P = 0.18), whereas the reactivity score and ADSU were correlated (R = 0.68, P = 0.004). For the group housed heifers no significant correlation was detected between the reactivity score and ADGF (R = 0.18, P = 0.22) or ADGU (R = &#8722;0.11, P = 0.39). No influence of the most dominant animal and the flightiest animals was found on the behaviour of the group in term of avoidance distance and reactivity (P > 0.05). It is concluded that the assessment of the fear of the animals towards humans using the avoidance test at the feed bunk may be useful for singly and group housed heifers and that the leaders of a group such as the flightiest animal or the dominant animal did not influence the avoidance distance test.

Abstract: From observations of intra-specific social grooming in cattle and studies on human stroking in other species, we hypothesised that cows' reactions to human stroking differ depending on the body regions being stroked. Moreover, we tested, whether cows `reactions to stroking change with the animals' experience of stroking. Sixty dairy cows were stroked in three different body regions, i.e. the withers, W, neck ventral, NV (both licked often in social grooming) and the lateral chest, LC (licked rarely), in a balanced order during 10-min sessions. Behavioural reactions and heart rate during stroking as well as reactions to the human just after stroking were recorded. Two test sessions were carried out with 3 weeks of treatment in-between. During this period, the cows were randomly allocated to four treatment groups: three groups received 5 min of daily stroking in either W, NV or LC and the last one (control group) was exposed to simple human presence. During stroking W and NV, cows showed longer neck stretching and ear hanging than during stroking LC (P < 0.001). Moreover, ear hanging was shown longer when W was stroked as compared to NV (P < 0.001), but neck stretching was observed longer during stroking NV as compared to W only after the treatment period (P < 0.01). In the first test session, more animals showed head shaking and head throwing during stroking W and NV than LC (P < 0.01), whereas in the second test session these behaviours were observed only in few animals. In the first test session heart rate was higher during stroking W than the other body regions (P <= 0.01). In the second test session, the lowest heart rate was found during stroking NV (P < 0.05). Finally, contact with the experimenter following stroking differed for the three body regions stroked in both test sessions (first: P = 0.06, second: P < 0.01); contact was shortest for LC. When comparing both test sessions, stretching the neck and ear hanging increased (P < 0.001), while head shaking and head throwing decreased (P < 0.05); there was no difference for heart rate and contact with the experimenter. The four treatments had no influence on reactions to stroking. To conclude, stroking of body regions often licked during social grooming led to more responses than stroking the one licked rarely. Some reactions, such as stretching the neck, are also observed during social licking. This suggests that cows may in part perceive human stroking of body regions often licked similarly to social licking. This knowledge could be of interest for an improvement in quality of human-cattle interactions.

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: Behaviour is an important factor to be taken into account in the various uses of horses. Today horses are mainly used for sport and leisure activities. They should therefore be easy to manage, calm and not fearful. Early handling is known to improve manageability and learning ability and to reduce fearfulness in various species. It has become fashionable in the horse industry to use an early training procedure, referred to as “imprint training”, which is said to produce durable if not permanent effects. However, no studies concerning the long-term effects of such neonatal handling have been carried out in horses. The present study examines the short- and long-term effects of neonatal handling on manageability, general reactivity and learning ability of foals. Twenty-six Welsh foals were studied: 13 were handled daily for 14 days from birth and 13 were non-handled controls. The handling procedure consisted of fitting a halter, gently patting all parts of each foal's body, picking up feet and leading over 40 m. Two days, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after the end of the handling period, foals underwent behavioural tests to measure their manageability and various aspects of their reactivity. The results showed that neonatal handling has only short-term effects on manageability: 2 days after the handling period, handled animals were significantly easier to handle than controls for the four parameters measured during this test (time to fit a halter, time to pick up feet, walk ratio that is time during which foal walks under constraint/total time measured during leading and number of defensive reactions). Two parameters (time to fit a halter and walk ratio) were still lower in handled foals than in non-handled foals 3 months later and only one 6 months later (walk ratio). One year later there was no difference between groups. In addition, there was no effect of handling on reactivity at any time of testing or in any of the tests (reaction to isolation from conspecifics, presence of a human, presence of a novel object and to a surprise effect). Finally, neonatal handling did not improve the spatial or discriminative learning abilities measured at 14 months of age. To conclude, the effects of neonatal handling are only temporary.

Abstract: The horse's temperament, including its manageability and reactivity and/or fearfulness, is of importance as it can result in problems and can render horses unsuitable for inexperienced riders. Early experience, including handling during infancy, may influence the horse's adult behaviour and reduce its fear of humans and other potentially frigthening situations. In the various species studied, handling has generally been undertaken during the neonatal period. The aim of the present study was to test the effects of handling young horses around the time of weaning, a period which has been demonstrated to be effective in increasing ease of handling in cattle and goats. Sixteen Anglo-Arab foals were handled for 12 days either immediately following weaning (early handled: EH) or 21 days later (late handled: LH); eight additional non-handled foals served as controls (C). Handling consisted of haltering, gently petting all parts of the body, picking up feet and leading the foal over 120 m. During handling sessions, EH were easier to handle than LH: time taken to fit them with a halter, to pick up feet, and “walk-ratio” (time walking under constraint/total time walking) were significantly lower for EH. During subsequent tests conducted over 2 days, 4, and 7 months, as well as 10 months and to some extent 18 months after the end of handling period, EH and LH were easier to handle and less reactive than controls, although differences diminished with time. The period following weaning can therefore be qualified as an “optimal period” for handling. Some of the effects persist for at least 18 months.