Abstract: The relationship between social behaviour and skin injuries (caused by horns) of loose housed horned cows was investigated on 35 dairy farms. While the frequencies of two agonistic behaviour elements (push and chase away) were positively correlated with the occurrence of skin injuries, the frequencies of butting and homing were not. Butting appears to have an ambivalent motivation, in that its occurrence is correlated positively both with agonistic behaviour and with social licking. Horning showed a positive correlation with social licking only. Four groups of husbandry conditions that may be associated with the occurrence of social behaviour and of injuries were distinguished: i) herd management, with variables including problem solving management by the farmer, integration of new cows, and dealing with periparturient and oestrus cows; ii) human-animal relationship, with variables including ability to identify individual cows, frequency of brushing the cows, number of milkers, and frequency of personnel changes; iii) animal characteristics, with the variable of herd size; and iv) stable characteristics, with the variable of space per cow (m²). The relevance of the husbandry variables investigated here had been confirmed in a previous stepwise regression analysis (Menke 1996). The variables for herd management and human-animal relationship conditions correlated in a consistent way with the occurrence of agonistic behaviour and/or of injuries, while most of them also correlated in the opposite direction with the occurrence of social licking. Herd size correlated positively with agonistic behaviour, but negatively with social licking. Space per cow correlated negatively with agonistic behaviour and injuries. In more than 70 per cent of the herds investigated, the levels of agonistic behaviour and of skin injuries were low, implying that horned dairy cows can be kept with less risk than is often assumed. We argue that such risks strongly depend on management factors that can be improved.

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: 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: Veterinary treatments are often aversive or painful, resulting in stress, avoidance, or aggressive behaviour. This preliminary study investigated which behaviours horses and humans display during veterinary examinations or treatments and if specific behaviours are shown more often during particular situations . Moreover, possible links between human and equine behaviour were investigated. Behaviours of horses, veterinarians, and assisting people were recorded at 5 clinics during 49 routine treatments that were divided into 111 situations (assigned to 7 categories: giving injections, waiting, leading horses, inspections with light body contact, invasive inspections, leg inspections, spraying/shaving). Behaviours of humans present during a situation were summarised. Behaviours (frequencies/minute) were analysed by Kruskal-Wallis tests and Spearman rank correlations. Horses showed insecurity (stopping, baulking, defecation) with different frequencies in the different categories (Chi2=23.38, df=6, P=0.001), e.g., often during leading. In humans, activating behaviour (e.g., arm waving, whistling, tongue clicking) was displayed with different frequencies (Chi2=20.42, df=6, P=0.002), e.g., frequently during leading. Restlessness in horses (e.g., stepping, head movements) tended to occur with different frequencies (Chi2=12.37, df=6, P=0.054), e.g., often during invasive inspections. Humans applied restraining techniques considered to be painful (e.g., ear twisting) with different frequencies (Chi2=26.20, df=6, P<0.001), e.g., mostly during invasive inspections. Restlessness in horses correlated with negative human interactions (e.g., hitting, talking impatiently, shouting: rs=0.28, P=0.002, n=111) and neutral human interactions (e.g., slight hits, talking dominantly: rs=0.45, P<0.001, n=111) as well as with the use of painful restraint techniques (rs=0.46, P<0.001, n=111). Moreover, avoidance behaviour of the horses (turning and stepping away) correlated with negative human interactions (rs=0.30, P=0.002, n=111). Thus, humans and horses showed certain behaviours in different situations with differing frequencies. Moreover, links between human and animal behaviour were found. Future studies should analyse causal connections, i.e., if the observed animal behaviour is the result of/or the reason for human interactions by sequence analysis. KW -