Irodalom | Középiskola » Jack L. Albright - Human Farm Animal Relationships

HUMAN/FARM ANIMAL RELATIONSHIPS1 Jack L. Albrighr Inttoduction A recent educatlonal pamphlet entitled "We Need Farm Anim.als"3 was issued from an enlighLe ned self-intcrcst group and statcd: Humans and domestic animals have mutually benefited each other for centuries. Each cootributes to the well-being of che ocher; humans provide the feed and housing for animals, a.nd an imals produce milk, eggs, fiber, mea[, draft power, and recreation for humans. Animals give us improvecl nurrit!on, better health, and comparlionship. Animals help us enjoy greater prosperity and an improved standard of living. Fou rcccn imponam comributioos arising from farm animals were d iscussed.1 N. the top of the list was the category of "Needs of Humans": Animals fulfill a basic need of humans-a desire to be wanted and accepted and to have something rely on us for altention and care. This may explain why most farmers feel so close ro their farm anlmals. Animals also serve as companions and

pets and comribute to our recreatlonal n<x:cls Comributions of animals as companions arc significant cvcn though it is difficulc m quantify the pleasure and emotional value. Animals used in sporrs such as horse r:icing provide jobs and lncome for many people and entertainment and recrcation for millions. A final statement summarized and concluded: . Many people of Lhe wodd are supported almost completely b) animals because they live in areas unsuitable for crop p roduction.5 Animals have proven to be vital and necessary for Lhe nutrition, by-products, economic benefit~. and compa.nionship that they provide Animal producrs are cxcellent complemenrs to fruits, vegetables, and cercals, and they arc needed to ensurc a cornplete and balanced d iet. Many additional products that come írom animals often ate nm recognized as being of animal origin, but Lhey contributc very much to our livcs. The contributíons of livestoc:k arc so great that aoimal~ ate essential to the well-bdng of

humans in all parts of the world. 51 J.L Albrlght 52 Human/Fann Animal Interaction s At a conference on the Human/Animal Bond, Kilgour (1983) reponed as follows: Huma□s kecp anim-als, birds or insects for food, apparel, traction, carragc, sport, entenaínmenl, scientific research, and industrial uses. Considerable control is exercised over mate selection, rep roduction, maternal care and rearing, group size and composition, feed offered, living quarter space and desígn, etc. The "domestic contract" or "trade-off 1s not entitely one-sided. Animals are protected from the worst exigencies of cJimate, seldom are wlthout adequate food, and are comparar.ively healchy and protected from predators ln a sense the cur re.nt concerns raísed by animal welfariSts are part of a re-examination of the terms of the domesdc com:ract or thc trade off implicit in "domestication." lt is appropriatc that lhis contract should be re-examined each few decades. Recent

intensificaLion in tl1e animal industries and the growth of aucomation m::ike it importanl for societ:y to re-evaluate its stance to domesric animals. Farm anirnals arc alio being kept as pets, as evldenced rJiat there are more than 100 pigs now living in residential areas i.n the United States (Schwadel 1986) Homa sapiens is one or the few species to c.nter into extended and complex social relacionships wirh ocher species. 1n some cases, sud, as the mUker with rhe cow, the .5hepher<l and the dog, and the rancher with a horse, this may involvc smkíng ones food supply and income, well-being, and even life on the trust and success of a close relationship. ln the social comract between carctakei; and animal, it seems obv!ous that rhe handler should acknowledge and accept appropriate behavior. Human/Animal Combina.Jions - There are varlous combinations of human beings anct farm animals. This paper attempts to evaluatc those few studies of humans handling farm animals within a

prescribed environmem. Personality trnits of dáiry farme rs and livestock people as determined by the Rysenck Personality Invcntory (Eysenck 1977) need furcher study (Seabrook 1974; Arave and Brown 1979). Seabrooks sample size was small (20 herds) and these herds were critici7.cd for having low yields while Arave and Browns questionnaire did nm go far enough. The classical model is rhe human/anirnal relationship. Occasionally rhere are others. Oiffercnt pathways are proposed as follows: Human - - -Iluman/Animal Thcsc models will be illustrarcd through rwo accounts. At che state menta! instltuúon herd, MedicaJ L1ke, Washingt.0n, they had an increas!ng numbcr of dairy calves becoming iU with unusual behavioral symptoms. The herd manager invescigated and questioned the varíous inmates including the calf feeder. The problem contlnued As a last resort thc l1crd manager decided to observe t.he variouli inmates and their visits to the calf barn Finally, one particular inmate after dinner

wem past t.he garbage cans backof the pharmacy where be picked up a handful of assorted p ills and headed for the calf barn. Human/Fann io.imal Relationships 53 Here the larger scene unfolded. In front of each calf, the inmate noted that the calves did not look well. Each night he would treat each calf to sorne unknown drug prescribed best to hwnans. The mystery was solved and thís episode illustrates the importance of human-to-human observation and imeraction with rhe drastic effects of indiscriminate dosage upon an animals behavior and well-bel.ng Human - - - - .Animal/Animal The other incidem cook place on sabbatical leave at ú1e New Zealand Ruakura Animal Research Station. One evening after hours near the large animal learning maze, there was considerable commotion with the large group of tethered dogs barking jncessantly. Then there would be quiet, followed by whistling and then barking. The resident mynah birds hjdden ln a grove of trees nearby had learned to imitate the

human shepberds whistles (calls) for herding sheep. Each evening the mynah b irds would rehe,u-se and deliver a chorus of whistles, driviog the dogs ro discraction. Domesticatíon and Tameness. -According t0 Murphey etal (1981 ), domestication efforts have not been totally successful Even after millennia of husbandry, behavioral control chrough forced compliance and confinement is stíl! praaiced. Physical resrraims imposed upon lívestock can resu1t in lifelong dcpendence on the captors, with consequenr cultural changes bringing about human dependence on the captives. Price (1984), in a rcccnt review on domesticaúon, searches for clues and behavioral aspects of animal domestication. ln his study, he reminds us that: . (perhaps) the first requiremem for the successful domestication of any species is that man, the clomesticator, have a récognlzed neéd or desire that can only be satisfied by comrolling, procecting, and breeding a cerrain population of animals. So far, few species

have been domesticated for other reasons (c.g, food produccion, companionship) Du ring domestication some tra1ts havc become more or less frequent and conspícuous. During domestication body size has generally increased for so!lle species (e.g, horse, rabbit) and has decrcased for ochers (c.g, cattle, sheep) Some phenocypic cbaracterL~tics (eg,, body color) of cenain domestlcared species have become more variable during domestication, whereas other traits (c.g, tamencss) have bccome less variable Also according to Price ( 1984): Darwin suggesred that domestication ís more than taming, that it includes bree<ling animals in captiviry, is goal-oriemed, may occur without conscious effort on the pari of man, increases fecundily, may bring about the atrophy of certain body organs, enables animals to achieve greacer plasticlty, and is facili rated by subjugarion to man, the domesticator. Some comemporary definicions postulatc that domescicatíon is a condition iu which the breedin.g,

care , and feeding of -animals are more or less comrolled by man. This defínition implics that a population of animals is rendered domestic by exposure ro d1e capcive envtronment and by the institution of cettain man,1gemcnt practices. J.L Albright Farm animals selected and domesticated by man are very social by nature (Kilgour 1983). They are characterized by a dominance hierarchy, where man is able one way or another to esLablish dominance over every member of the animal group. Quite the opposiLe of the way successful cowmen and rnilk:maids handle milk cows Lhrough ne (Tender Loving Care), the Fulani culture in northern Nigeria has made a general social virtue of the aggressive dorninance Ihat is vitat in the husbandry of Lheir Cdttle. A high levei of aggressive, assertive, combative behavior, both verbal and physical abuse, is nm only accepted bm demanded ín social relalions with one human male to anolher and to their caule (J.0tt and Hart 1977) An important point often

overlooked is that Lhe ternpcrarnent of farm animals is influenced by lhe temperamenL of tJ1eír caretakers (Stricklln and Kaut:z-Scanavy 1984). With high-producing dairy caltle, a cows fear of an aggressive handler may upset her lf she has a nervous temperament. Temperamenl in cows is quite an important aspect of cowmanship as one undisciplined cow can unsetcle the enlire herd (Burnside et al[1971], reporred that problem dairy cows-slow milkers or bad temperaments-culled and sold represenr 3.6, 21, 21, and 19% of all Ayrshire, Guernsey, Holstein, and Jersey disposals, respectively Of the problem cows, 42% of lhe Ayrshlre, 10% of the Guernsey; 29% ofthe Holstein, and 37% of theJersey cows were categorized as having bad temperaments.) Schmidt and Van Vleck (1974) categorized the differem dairy breeds for temperament as follows: Ayrshire (nervous), Brown Swiss (docile, stubbom), Guernsey (docile), HolsLein (docile), and Jersey (somewhat nervous). Some farmers buy other farmers cuJls

knowing that t.hey will become top quality cows in their herd. Therefore the handling of the cow has a lOL to do wilh her temperament. Even in large herds, dairymen will have favorites arnong herd members. Well-adjusted cows show ready movement into rnilking parlors wlth or without grain as an inducemem. Cows will often readily approach good herdsmen. lt has been suggested that the true test of cowmanship is whether the cows exhibit approach behavior and come co the herdsman in the pasture (best) or turn away as he approaches (worsL) or just stand still (neutral) when he comes closer (Albright 1978, 1981a). Spatial Reactiviry ofAnimals. -The spatial reacrivity of animals to intruders with appropriate behavior terminology haS been compiled byWaring(]985} Animals exhibit specific reacrive dtstaoces. For example, an approachíng intrudcr first causes an animal to become arteotive when it reaches the investigalive distance." Tue anirnal detected the approaching imruder when it reached

the perceptive distance." 1ne distance at whlcb an inimal first begins to flee from an intruder is the "flight distance." 1he distance the fieeing animal thcn places between irself aod the intruder before ceasing ílight is the wirhdrawal disrance." When inhibited from fleeing, an animal firs1 becomes defensive toward an approaching intruder at the "aggressive distance. The space around a resource defended by an indMdual or group is a "terricory:" TI1e minimum distance rolerared between individuals undcr normal condiúons is thc "individual distance"; this creates a "persona! space" around the individual ("group Human/Farm Animal Relatio nsh ips SS space" in the case of groups). The "strike distance" is the extent of a stationary animals reach for inflicting physical harm on au intruder; in bird5, it is often called "peck distance. A "submissivc distance is whcre an individual füst shows

crínging or olher subm1ssiveness when nearing a dominanL And the maximum distance an individual wanders from mcmbers of its social group under norma! conditions before starting to return is called the "social distance." Reaclive distances and their magnitude are ínfluenced by the environmental conrext, physiological and psychological statc of the animal, intensity of stimulation, experience, etc. Reaclive dístances are evident under frec-ranging as well as captive conditions, and can be importam tó anyóne lrying tó approach, manipulate, or manage antmals. Approach-Avoidance Relationsbtps. - Undomesttcated ungulates and domesticated cattle have paradoxical tendencies both to approach and to avold humans (Hediger 1955). Murphey et a l (1981 ), have reviewed approach avoidance responses, Approach (investigating a person lying on the ground) and avoidance (ilight distance) were studied among 525 cows-25 aoimals observed io 21 Brazilian herds of Bos taurus, Bos indicus, and

R taurus x B, índicus breeds. (Seven herds were compared ín their Jnvestigatory responses tO a human and a bal!. Breed differences were evident for approach and avoidance behavior which had little relationship with one another. When reactions to the person and ball were compared, the responses were also breed specific and negatively correlated. Age took precedence over breed ín investigating the human ina predacor-prey context.) One observer (Murphey et al. 1980, 1981) scationed hímself in or near each herd for 30 minuces recording the animals general activities while allowing them to become accustomed to his presence, after which he tested the flight distance ("approach ability" or "unconceded distance") of iodividual cows. He used a split-image range finder and careful pacing (approximately one stride per second) to learn how close he could walk toward her b efore she fled or Murplley could touch her head. Murphey et al (1981) found that there are breed

differences in fügbtd1stances and that dairy cattle have less llight discance than do beef breeds. Earlier, dairy caccle were estimated to bave a flight dist-ance to man of 12 feet and beef cows of 16 feec (McFarlane 1976). l n high-producing cows or in the country with the highest milk production per cow in tbe world-Israel-claims are made for their lsraeli Friesian cows degree of cameness and cheir zero fllght distance (McFarlane 1976; Albright 1978). ln the worlds record milk producer Indiana Holstein Beecher Arlinda Ellens case with the Beecher fa.mily waiting on her almost continuously throughout her Iife, it is easier to explain her zero flight distance, overall tameness, temperament, and willingness to approacb family and stranger alike. The facc that all of the dairy sccck were more approad,able by ú1e hwnan than were beef cattle in the Murphey study should not be coo surprising. Dairy b reeds have undergone considerable behavlor-genetic selection to facilitate milking and

Ú1ey cend to be handled differently and to have had more contact with humans during thelr developmem than have beef cattle, This also makes dairy cattle more dependent upon humans than their beef 56 J.L Albrigbt counterpans. Beef anirnals tend to be better mothers than dairy cattle (Selman et al. 1970a, b) ancl come fairly clűse tű füting Kilgűur and Daltons (1983) behaviűral definitiűn űÍ cattle: Cows are large, hairy ruminams IMng in herds whích roam over a large area of grassland. The fernale withdraws from the herd to produce one (rarely Lwo) precocial young which soon stand and suckle four to sbt times a day, They "lie-out away from the dam for at least the fírst week of life during the daytime. These lyiog-out patterns together with head threats aa co sec greater distances between cows ín thc hcrd than sheep ln a flock. 1n small herds, straighrlinc social dorrtinance ranks are found and theseare stable over manym onths . Stockmanship. -Stűckmanship can be

defined as "knűwing the individual behavior űf every animal in űnes charge, and having thc ability tű rccűgnize small changes in the behaviűr űf any animal or all űf the animals Cűllectively" (Seabrook 1977), -According to IIollier (1979), there is an interactiűn or the pig with its physical surroundings, other pigs in its group, and with the person responsible for looking after its needs. ln űrder tű achieve better performance of grűwth efficiency, the pig is placcd in an environmem where it is dependem upon humans for most of itS requirements. More of the physical aspects of the environmem such as temperature and the b~ic social requiremc.nts such as stocking denslty and feed space just now are being undcrstood. There is insufficienr attemion co the importance of having a trained person looking after the pigs. Developlng a code of behavior and personal discipline ín an approach to look.ing after imensively kepe animals is going to become increasingly important

in maximizing response ín pig performance Good stock peűple exhibit three d1aracteristics compared to the untrained person ( Hollier 1979): Firscly, they are perceptive co conditions from the animals poinl ofview and havc dcveloped the dtsciplinc of traíned obse.rvation of the health, comfort, and welfare ofthe pigs as a method of assessing ongoing performance Jevels. Secondly, they take the crouble to ensure that as soon as they see something is wrong it is put righr itnmediately. Thirdly, they organ;ize pig flow through the buildin~s by pianning their productlon line. This means that at all times input, output, and inventory of pigs on hand are as closely balanced to the physical limications of the building as is praccícally possible. Observation is a key ingredient in stűckmanship with a willingness on the part űÍ the stock.man to Cűrrect the Cűndit iűns causing rhe deviátion from oormal behavlor pactero. Human/F:ttm Animal Relationsltips 57 According to Anderson

(1974): Husbandry or stocl!:mansh.ip, the refation berween man and hís animals, although commonly recognized as being an lmportant item in rcrms of man himself, particularly in the responsiveness of h.is animals, has receivcd meager, if any, attention from the invescigator, TJ indced animal response is influenced by human behaVior, what are the factors involved and can th.ey be measured and disciplined so that chance alone is not the mediator? In terms of job satisfaction there are Rve basic categories of human needs, and, as a general principle, the satisfaction of ead1 group serves as a prerequisite to the next group. 1hese groups are (1) biological needs, (2) safety and security needs, (3) need far affeaion, belonging, love, (4) the need for estee.m and (5) self-accualization needs or full potential (Maslow 1970; Curlis 1983). The Stockmans Personality and Milk Yields. - Engish dairymen and rheir cows were obseiVed in a series of studies (Seabrook 1971, 1972a,b, 1973, 1974, 1977,

1980, and 1984). 111ey defined good stockmanship as the "knowledge of the behavior of individual cows in rhe herd and the ability to notice deviations from normal behavior. From a study of about 50 herds of similar size (50-80 cows), composilion, facilities, and management, Seabrook found rhat milk yield differences were accounted far by two factors, the leve l of concemrates fed and rhe herdsman. Of rhe 20% dillerences in milk yield between farms, concentrate levels between herds accounted for only abour 25% of yield dlfferences. This led to a long-term study in 20 herds of the herdsman and h is personality. The frequency of recorded comments of various subjects of verbal and non-verbal s ignals, the frequency of human displacement actiVities like head scratching, yelling, cursing, and the interacúons between herdsman and cows were recorded across all seasons and úrnes of day. (The herdsman considered ft to be a study of cow behaviorl") Stockmanship is best exercised when

a high proporlion of tíme is spent in contact wlrh t.he cows, yet on one-man units, up to 60% of rhe working hours may be spent on non-cow contacr Such jobs ca.using high frustration should, whenever possible, be mechanized and simplified. Human annoyance can reá.ch high levels just before meals, and if non-contact jobs are done then, the work is generally poor and careless. l Iuman fatigue reaches its peak during m.ilking when one-third of the cows remain to be milked, irrespeclive of herd size. Displacement activity levels peak at this point and the quaUty of decision making drops. Tbe best human personality type far single unit dairy farms was characterized, A self-reliant, corúident, introvert, quiet, reserved, non-sociable ("grumpy") person with cows can easíly our-produce (eight herds with 5,191 liters) a similar person lacking confidence (six herds of 4,535 liters), while a confident extrovert ("cheerful Charlíe") rends ro have only average producLion

achievement (4,629 liter average in Six herds). A sound relacionship is based on communication as well as confidence. 58 J.L Albrigbt Some competent cowman talk to their cows when they are under stress. They use a pleasanc voice but at limes display the necessary dominance. Toe good communicator is somewhat placid, rather than excitable, and he reinforces good behavior by p leasanc words and touch (conract comfort) with his cows. Seabrook ( 1977) aJso listed three other rules: patience, consideration for the needs of the cow, and consistency. ln the case ofa good stockman, the animals do well and production is high, whereas the poor stockman can reduce productivity, although he apparently does all the jobs rhat are e),,-pected of him. The classic example of this effect is illustrated by the experience of Hampshire farmer, Rex Patterson, whose herds Martin Seabrook studied. Rex Patterson dassified his tenants as "stockmen or milk extractars" in terrns of the yield they

obtained fmm the many dáiry herds he owns. As a result he and his manager found that a good stockman and his attitude towardc; his cows will obtain up to a 20% increase in millc yield over a poor stockman on the same farm (Kiley-Worthingcon 1977). Herdsmen in High-Producing Here/s. -The personality of herdsmen was assessed in large, h~gh-producing herds ln the United Kingdom and North America (Reid 1977). The assessment of the 25 herdsmen in the study showed 17 of them to be of the con.fident imrovert category Some of the trairs which the herdsmen ín this study had ín common were: instant recognition of each animal in the herd; a high percernage of their cows approached them; the average number of hours worked was 63 (because of their nature and interest, many herdsmen were only content when spending over 60 hours a week w ith their cows); 23 were married, all possessed a motor car, only one herdc;man had further educacion; few had imerests in commun ity. church, or sports but

several had gardening as a hobby. (Each of them in the United Kingdom grew flowers. l n particúlar, roses, gladíoH, chrysanthemums, dahJias, and wallflowers were grown by the herdsmen and chese panicular species require speciaJ treatment at specific times ofthe year, and lik.e cows, respond to feeding). They (21 subjects) had a pet or pets, and almost everyone had kepe rabbits, guínea pígs, hamsters, or m ice as pers when they were children. Many had hand milked cows before the age of 10, most had few dose friends while ín school. Reld (1977) summarized the high-production herdsman as obtaining a higher percentage of the milk yield which her genetic capability permics than oth ers would obtain írom the same cow ín s imilar large herd conditions (85 to 130 cows). The high-production herdsman achieved thls by conscant anemion to the behavioral pattern and performance o f each individual cow within the herd. His ambitions are comple mentary to the best ínterests of the dairy

industry and his employer, who also rended to work long hours averaging 76 with a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 90. The herdsman recognizes that hopingwithoutworking creates illusions Opponunities for encouraging cows to associate the herdsman with pleasant feelings will occur during handling before calving, at calving time, in the collecting yard, and during milking. This relationship can be reinforced by feed rewards, patting the cow; tone of voice, and approaching the cow. Human/Farm AniroaJ Relationshl.ps S9 Account needs to be taken of the role of the human as a calf substitute (Seabrook 1977). Effects ofHuman l-fandling of Cbickens (Hens a:nd Chícks). -Hughes and Black (1976) of Scotland found tliat handling caused srress and reduced egg production but only ín hens nat accustomed to it. Regular handLing had no effect, indicating the hens had habituated to it. 0epressing or stimulating effects of handling may be finely halanced With inherem fearfulness as a comrolling

factor. Irregular handling depresses performance, while habltuaúon occurs during regular handling Once the initiat fear responses have waned, the extra stimulation provided by regula.r handling may enhaoce ability to adapt ro orher novel and stress-inducing stimuli. There is little agreement about tbe effects of handling upon chícks growth rares. Some authors (McPherson et al 1961; Reíchman et al 1978) concluded that handling immature broilets and pullets had no effect, whereas Freeman and Manning (1979) found that regular handling decreased growth in chicks of a layer strain. Thompson (l976) and Gross and Siegel (1979) found increased growth following handling ín broilers and layers, results consistent with findings in rats (Ruegamer et al. 1954; Weininger 1956; Levine 1962) Dlfferent handling regimec;, methods, strain, sex and age differences may help to explain these inconsístencies (Jenes and Hughes 1981). The effect of regular handling (twice-daily) on growth and gain-to-feed

ratios in male and female chicks of layer (two sr.rains) and broiler strains were examined from hacching to three weeks of age in six batches of 160 hirds each by Jones and Hughes (1981). Growrh was significantly enhanced by regular· handling in broilers and the females of the layer strains, and gain-to-feed raúos were generally greater ín the handled birds. There were no sígnificant treacmem effects on growth or gain-to-feed ratios ín males of the layer strains. Males had higher relative wcight gains and gain-to-feed ratios t.han females The irnproved performance of the handled hroilers agrees wíth the find.ings of Thompson (1976), but conflict.S wüh those of McPherson et al (1961) :md Reichman et al. (1978), who found no effects of handling on growth Tbe birdi were hand.led once weekly in the latter two Studies, whereas Jones and Hughes (1981) birds were handled twice-daily and those of Thompson were handled once a day for 15 days from hatching. The birds used by McPherson et

al. (1961) and Reichman ec al (1978) were one and nine weeks old, respectJvely, before stimulation hegan, whereas Jones and Hughes birds were handled from the first day of life. It is likely thar the inconsisrencies can be explained in terms of either differences in !ntensity of stimulation or the existence of a sensitive period. The chicks of Freeman and M.aruting were handled twice-daily for five days per week for three weeks; a little les.s stimulation than thar perceived by chicks handled by Jones and Hughes (1981). The interval on weekends producing an irregular regime may be an important factor. Strain differences may also account for this disagreement but Freeman and Manning weighed only a small number of chicks and d.id not distinguísh sexes 60 J.t Albrigbt ln a Uruted States srudy by Gross and Slegel (1982), chicks were habituated to human beings (socialized) by being talked to, offered food, and handled gently within an environment with a minimum of noise. After seven

weekc; of socialization, the birds were chaJlenge exposed with Escbericbia coli. When compared with ignored groups, the socialized birds showed more than a 60% reduction in the prevalence of death and pericarditis. Furthermore, small flock.c; of socialized birds were more uniform io their response to E coli than were similar nonsociali7.ed flocks Socialized chíckens also had improved feed efficiency and increased antibody response. SociaHzation was also applied easily to larger flocks of chickens. Socialization of chickens to their handlers by being talked to, offered food, and handled gently resulrs in increased feed efficiency, growth rate, uniformity of responses to all tesrs, resistance to stressors, antibody response to antigen, blood protein, and ina·eased resistance to a wide variety of infectious agents (Gross 1983). Responses of Pigs to the Presen.ce ofHumans - Twelve commercial one-man pig farm s of medium to high productivity were selected for the study of Hemsworth et al.

(1981) A large integrated company controlled the farms providing pigs, feed, weekly management and twice-weekly veterinary advice. The 12 Dutch farms had very similar inputs apart from theability ofthe stockman. Two clifferem behavioral test<; were conducted on 1,225 and 480 pregnant sows, respectively, to examine their behavioral response towards bumans: Sows displayed a significantJy (P > 0.05) greater wíthdrawal response to the approaching experimenrers hand (Test l ) and a signlficamly (P < 0.05) lower approach behavior towards the stationary experimenter (Test 2) atfarms in which the average total number of piglets bom per sow per year was low. The achievemenr and maintenance of a good human/anímal relationship requires an animals understand.ing of the type and nature of signals released by humans. l n a foJlow-up experiment in the United States by Hemsworth et al. (]983), two experiments were conducted to evaluate the nature of several common signals. 80th experiments

were a 2 x 2 factorial of signal involving 48 and 44, 10-12 week-old pigs. The nature of the signals was evaluated by quantifying the approach behavior of the pigs to the experimenrer in four three-minute tesrs over an eight-day perlod. Non-approacb, squat posture (closer to the p igs) and bare hands by the experimenter were associated with an increase in the approach behavlor of the pig. Therefore, naive pigs appear to interpret these signals to be nonthreatening in nature. There were also s ignificam differences in lítters on approach behavior. These e,xperirnents demonstrate that the narure of signals released by humans can be identified. The effects of handling and stimulating on the behavior of young pigs were studied by Grandin et al. (1983) Pígs (24 four and a half-week-old Hampshire-si.red crossbred) from five litters were placed in eíther a "stimulating" or a nonstimuJating" envi ronment. The "nonstimulat• ing" environmenr consisted of placing two

pigs in each of si.x 122 m x 122 m nursery pens with plastic-coated expanded-metal floors. Ughting and temperature in the room were constant and the pigs were not handled e."i:cept for adding feed to the self-feeders once-daíly and deaning the pens Human/Farm Animal Relationshlps 6J. every third day. The "stimulating" environment consisted of 12 pigs placed togerher in one outdoor pen with a concrete íloor and adjoining house bedded with straw. These pigs were handled and played with for at lcast 15, and often , 30 mínutes daily and also provided with objecrs ("toys") with which to play (e.g, plastic rnilk crate, garbage can, chains, cloth strips, dirt, stones, newspapers, c-ardboard boxés, rapes and twine). The objects were cbanged daily. At the end of the níne-week trial, approacb limes to either a strange ma.n or a novel object (red feeder scandjng on end) were rneasured in a 2.74 m wide octagonal pen with 122 m high white plywood walls and brown

plastic carpeting on thé floor. There was a three minute time llmir Resulting data were: Approach man: "stimulated, 59.5 seconds; "unstimulated," 1003 seconds Approach novel objecl: "súmulated," 498 seconds; "unstirnulated," 83.5 seconds Differences arnong litters were also apparent One stímulated pig vocalized durlng the test<;, and she and her Littermates were slower to approach the man regardless of rearing environment (125.9 seconds vs. 609 seconds) Observatíons indicated that the pigs would stop playing with an object unless it was changed often, and the pigs played with some objects longer chan others. lf an object (eg, bowling ball) became comaminated with manure, the pigs tended to avoid it Previous studies in the farm animaJ area have been limited from behavioral tests (swine), to once-daily (chJ.cken) as well as close twice--daily interaction becween the cowman and individual cows in the herd. These innovative, one-of-a-kind, creative

studíes acrract a great deal of imerest and comment; however, they are difücult to duplicare and repeat Also, with more reliance placed upon machinery and controlled environmems, currently there is less eropbasis upon animal handling and husband.ry-like skfüs Thus, there is less úme spent per food produdng animal except ín the case of the companion farm animal species such as the borse> g<YJ.t, and dog Humans Are a Part of tbe Problem and Solution. - Other human/farm aoirnal relationship studies iodude work on early experience (Albríght 1981 b; Donaldson 1970; Donaldson et al. 1971, 1972, and 1974) They showed social 1solation duríng an early developmental períod increased later milk production in Holstein dairy canle. Behavior modillcation is a powerful tool and it has been used to train dairy cattle by operant conditioning methods (Wisniewski 1977; Wisniewskí and Albright 1978a, b). Through proper training of the cows and milking parlor operator, cows were induced to

cooperate withln rhe system instead of being forced to conform. Data collected by Wisniewski 0977) from 12,222 individual cow observations at milking limes during a one year period using a double-five herringbone parlor system showed that routinely only 2.8% of the cows entered the míllóng parlor voluntarily or unassisted. Stated another way; the strategy of 97.2% of the cows was 10 wail for the milker to come and to coax them through the doorways into the m ilking stalls. Training of Holstein heifers and cows to enter the p,u-lor using operant conditioning (with a training stimulus of either the doo.r opening, flashing lights, or a bu7.7er) with negative re inforcement (shock prod) resulted in 62 J.L Albrigbt peak performance observed on day 7 when 99.2% of the cows entered the parlor by themselves. Performance of the cows decreased after the traioíng period (64.9% entering unassisted vs 807%) bui chis represemed a 200-fold irnprovernem over the pre-training period (2.2%)

Untrained and parria1ly trajned cows followed the fully crained cows into the parlor. ln the above srudies byWisniewski, the leadership-followership behavioral trait ís used to advamage. The urge to follow in a species being as great as the urge to lead causes group activity and movement to and frotn pastures, imo and out of chutes, rnilking parlors and electronic feeders. The domestication and taming process illustrate the close human/animal bond whereby imprinting" (Albright 1982) as well a~ restraint, handling, craining, and exhibir.ing animals takes place Those interested in the care and welfare of farm animals are concerned by what animals (and not humans) wouldchoose when presented the opportuniry. One such early test to determine how animals think, anticipate, and react was developed by Krushinsky (1965). With pigeons, hens, crows, rabbits, cats, and dogs, the reinforcemem principle was utilized by placing food in one of rwo feeding bowls which scood side by side at the

gap behind a screen. When an animal started to eat the food, both bowls were moved io straight lines in opposite directions. After covering a d istance of 20 cm the bowls d isappeared beh.ind non-transparent flaps To solve the problem, the animal had to move arou11d the screen on the side behind where the feeding bowl had disappeared. Experiment11 animals had success rates of: pigeons (7% ), hens (52% ), crows (86% ), rabbits (27%), cats (86% ), and dogs (89%). Krushinskys technique wJ.s adapced to farm animals so as to provide a slow-moving trolley carrying food within a large animal learning maze. It dlsappeared into an A-frame tunnel and, aíter certain periods of time, reap• peared at the other end (Al bright et al. 1982) Three dairy cows were tested When the food trolley moved, chey demonstrated a "starúe" reaction (staring at the object with from feet firmly planted) which may have inhibited the teaming process. It took them rwo weeks before they learned to continue

eating from the moving food box and anticipace the reappearance of the rrolJey. After our human p resence was removed, success came about by observing the cows with a 1V monítor. The cows had become cooditioned and dependent upon humans e>.l)CCting us to remove them from the testing area -aft.er ihe food disappeared They explored and solved the problem only after we were o ut af sight. Since cows learn from each other, each cow and later each buli were put in the testing arena separately. Earlier, another 1q of 11 cows "startled" when the food object started moving and they did not Iearn how to solve the problern. None of the eight dairy bulis (four Jersey and four Friesian) learned to anticipate and had a larger stanle response than cows, They stopped eating once the food box was sec in motion. They showed a startJe reaccion when the crolley was 9 to 10 m away from them. ln addltion, 12 out of 15 pigs were able to "exLrapolate" from a known sítuation within

three days, and síx out of seven rams tested in four days. Human/Fann Animal Relationshi11s Summary Humans and farm animals contribuce to the murual well-being of one another. Humans provide the care, feed, and housing for animals that produce food, by-produc1S, fiber, work, recre.nion, and also improve human nucrition, health and companionship. Although the bonding and relationship between handler(s) and livestock may be important, it has been difficult to study and to quantify. After proper bonding, each time an animal is handled it will be more tame and pliable. Significant relationships between personality characteristics of dairymen and mílk produc1ion per cow were found in England and veri.fied in North America In surveying 50 one-man dairy herds of 50 lO 80 cows, 11 % more milk and greater willingness of cows ro emer the milking area were obtaíned by those daíryrnen classed as confidem introvens than by confident extroverts. Training of Holstein heifers and cows 10

enrer the milking parlor using operam conditioning resulted ln peak performance observed on day 7 when 99.2% of the cows emered the parlor by themselves as compared to the pre-treatmem period of 2.2% A Ducch study strongly suggests thac the reproductive performance of pigs is associated with the relationship between rhe scock.man and breeding stock Later US pig research demonstrated that handling and the nature of signals released by humans can be quantified. In Scotland, growth in broilers and layers was s ignificantly enhanced by regular handling. Socialization of chickens co United Staces handlers by being talked to, offered food, and handled gemly results ín increased feed efficiency, growth rate, and re!liStance to stressors. Endnotes t 1nvited lecture for Symposium !: Applied Ethology, MidwestAnimal BehavlorSoclecy Meeting, Southern Illinois Untversi1y at Carbondale, IL, April 28, 1984. 2 Professor of Animal Sdcnces,Dept. of Animal Scienccs, School of Agricukure and 1arge

Animal Clinics, School of Vcrerinary Medicine, Purdue University, West L:lfaye1te, IN 47907. Also, Purdue Center for Applied Ethology and Human/Ani,rnal lnreractions. This investigaüon is pan of the lndiana contrlbution to NCR-131 Animal Care and Behavior and NC-119 lmproving Dairy Herd Managerne(lt Practiccs. 3 J.eaflet •·we Need farm Animals" ls available from the Jmerlcan Sodety of Animal Sélence, 309 W Clark St, Champaign, J.L, 61820, 4 Topics listcd and discus.sed were on the Needs of Humans; Human Nutrition; Fnjoyment of Eating; Recyding of Nutclents; Use of Crop Residues; Use of lndustrial By-products; Use of Noncrop Land; Econom1c Contribution; Use of Feed Grains; Provide Fibers; Animal By-produqs; Food Storage; Power (Draft); and Human Research Appllc:itions. A surnmary statcmem and five refercnces for addltional informatlon are included. s. Elsewherc in the pamphlet a vlt:al, appropriate statemcnt is madc, "Due to inadequate rainfall, rocks and rough terrain,

only about one-fúrh of U.SA land 1s sultable for cropland WorkJwide the figure clrops to one-tenth. References Albright,JL 1978. The Behavior and Management of HighYíelding Dairy Gows BOCM SILCOCK Oalry Conference at Meath row; London, England, Jan. 30 Booklet, 43 pp 64 J.L Albright - . 191:na 11,e human cow ínteraction ln~DairyScllltJJtdbk 14:J57-62 ClovL~ CA:Agríservices, lnC - . 1981b 111e efferu of e:irly experíence upon socíal behavlor >Jnd milk production in cfairy caulc. Prcsentcd aL che Applied and Companion Aoimal Ethology Symposium, Animal Behavior Society, University of 1ennessee, K.noxville, June 25 Mimeo 4 pp - . 1982 Behnvioral responses 10 mum1gement systems-daíry ln Woods, WR ed Pt--owedings of tbe Symposúun of tbe fafcmagement c>J Food Próducing Animals. Purduc Uníversity, Wcst Lafayette, IN. Vol l :139-65 Alhright, JL, KJlgour, R and Wicr.lesconc, WG 1982 Thc Krushínsky Apparatus: A test for self awareness in farm animal~. lwiiana Acad Sci 91:

595-% Anderson, GW 1974. Old wine in a new skín or a nimal behavlor ia the modem 11n imal sdcnce curricu lum.] Anim Sci 39: 441-45 Arave, ~ and Brown, )E. 1979 Do livestock people h3ve diffcrem pcrsonalirics? Hoards !Jai,ymcm. 124, 344-45 Bumside, EB, Kowald1uk, VB, 1.amhroughton, O B and Macleod, NM 1971 Canad1an dairy cow dispersals. J DifTerences becween brecds, lactmion numbcrs and scasons Can } Anim Sci. 51: 75-78 Cunís, SE. 1983 Wlrnt consti1ures anJmal well-being? Int Cong on Animal Stress Sacra(11ento, CA. July 6-8, 27 pp Donaldson, SL. 1970 The effect> of carly lecdtng and rcaring experiences on social, ma1crnal and m ilking parlor bebavior in dairy catde. Ph D Oisscr1a1ion, Pllrdue Univ, , W lilayetLe, I N Donaldson, SL, Albrighc, JL, Black, WC and Harrington, RB. 1971 Effecrs of early feedíng-rearing regimes on adulc cattle b ehavior.} Anim ScL 33: 194 (Abstr) Donalúsun , SL, Albright,JI. and Black, WC 1972 Primary social relationships and c mle behavior lroc.

111diana Acad Sci 81 : 345-51 1974. Early feeding and rearing expcricnces and thcir effects upon behavior and milk production. htl l)aily C,<m g 19: 26-27 .l!ysenck, HJ 1977, ltm and Neuros/s Glasgow, William Collins Sons & Co Ltd 223 PPFreeman, 1:lM a 11d Maoning, AC 1979Strt:SSOr effeclS of handling on thc immaturc fowl Res in Vet, Sci. 26: 22326 Grandin, T, Cun:is, SE and Greeaough, w r. 1983 EffecLS o f rearing environment o n Ll,e behavfo r of young pigs, J. /,nim Sci 57 (Suµpl 1) : 137 (Absu-) Gross. WB 1983 Chicken-envlroament interaetions Rcsearch, mam,gcment, behavior and wellbeing or farm anim,ls Presemw at the Confer-ence on the I luman-Animal Bond Mínneapolís, MN June 13-14 (Abstr) Gross, WB :md Siegel, PB, 1979. Adapt:llion of chickens 10 their r,andler and ex pcnmen1al resuhs. Avian /Jiseases 23: 708-14 - . 1982 Socializatio n ru; a faaor in rcsistance t0 i11fection, fced efflciency, and respon~e lO antigen in éhickt=ns. Am J Vél Re:; 43; 201012 Hedígcr, H.

1955 Studíes of tbe Psychology and Bebat•lor nf Ct:1pli1•e Animal~ in Zoos a nd Circuses. New York: CriLerion Sooks Hemswo rth, PH, llrand, A and Willems, P. 1981 TI1e bel1avioral response of sows 10 the presenre o f human beings and i1S relatio n to productivicy. liuest Prod Sci 8: 67-74 HemSWorth, PH, Gonyou , HW and Dzllick, lJ. 1983, llnman rornmunicaáon with anímals ] , Anim. Scí 57(Suppl 1): 137-38 (Abstr:) Ho llíer, D. 1979 Aspects of Swir1e Ecology Spring Green , WI: Gareway Press, 180 pp Jones, RR and f-lughes, BO. 1981 Elfects of regular handling on grow1J1 rn male and fcma le chícks o f b roiler a nd layer SLrain. Bril FbuJ Sci 22: 461-65 Kiley-Worthingto n, M. 1977 B éba11ioural Proble1t,s of r-ann Anima/S Oriel Press Ltd: Srockfield, Nonhumberland, 134 pp. Human/Fann Animal Relationships 65 Kilgour, lt 1983. The role of human-animal-bonds ín farm animals and welfare issues Proc Conf. on the Human-Animal Band Minneapolis, MN pp 1--25, Kilgour, R and

Dalton, e. 1983 livestock Bebauior: A Practical Gttide St Albans, UK,! Granada Pubi. Ltd 320 pp Krushinsky, LV 1965. Solucion of elemen01ry logical problems by :!Jlimals on the basis of ex1rapo1ation, Progress tn Brain Researcb. VnL 17 Cybernelics of the Nervous System Weiner, N and Schade, JP. eds, few York, Elsevier Pub, Co pp 280--308 Levine, S. 1962 Psychoph~iologlcal effects of infantile stimulacion ln: Rnots of Bebaviour Bliss, EL. ed New York: Harpcr and Bmthers pp 246-59 Lott, DF and Hart, BL. 1977 Aggressivc dominacion of caccle by lJlani herd5mcn and les relation 10 aggression in Lhe Fulani culture and personality. Ethos 5(2): 174-86 Maslow, AH. 1970 Motiuation and Perscmality New York Harper and Row McFarlane, IS. 1976 Social behavior ín the herd Dairy Sci Hndbk 9: 63-66 McPherson, BN, Gyles, NR and Kan, J. 1961 The cffects of handling frequency on 8-week body weight, feed conversion and monalily. Poul, Sci 40: 1526--27 Murphey, RM, Duarte, FA and lorres Penedo, MC. 1980

Approachability of bovine cattle ín pastures: Breed cornparisons and a breed x trearment analysis, Beha11. Genet 10: 17383 - . 1981 Responses of canle to humans ín open spaces: Breed comparlsons and approach-avoidance relationships Behav CeneL 1 li 37--48 Price, t::O. 1984 Behavloral a5pects of animal domestiaition Quar1 Re11 Biol 590): 1--32 Reid, NS. 1977 To endeavor tó correlate common fac1ors which may exIsi in herdsme n in h igh yielding dairy herds. Nujfleld Pam1ing Scholarship Report Feb 21 pp Reichman, KG, Barram, KM, Brock, IJ and Srandfast, NE 1978. EffectS of regular handling and blood sampling by wing vein puncture on the performance of broilers and pullets. Brit, Poul. Scz: 19: 97·99 Ruegamer, WR, Bernstein, L and Benjamin, JO, 1954. Growth, food u1ilizatíon, and thyroid actívity ln the albino rar as a funcúon of extra handllng. Science 120: 184-85 Schmidl, GH and Van Vleck, ill. 1974 Princtptes of Dafry Science San Francisco: WH Freeman and Co. p 39 Schwadel, 1

J~)86. Some pe!S nor only live high o n lhe hog but really are hogs The Wa/1 Srreet ]. 66(95): l, 12 seabrook, MF. 1971 Stress and the cowman, Dairy Farmer IB(lO): 47, 49, 73 - . 1972a A sn,dy !O determine the ínfluence of the herdmans personaliry on milk yie lds] /VsrÍC. Labour Sci 1: 4549 - , 1972b. A study on the inf!uence of the cowmans personalíty and JOb satisfaction on milk yields of da1ry rows.j Agric Labour Sci 1: 49--93 - , 1973. Fit che cowman t0 lhe job Dairy Fanner 20(b): 22, 25, 53 - . 1974 A srudy of some elements ofthe cowmans skill as inlluencing the milt- yie ld of dairy cows. Ph D Thesis, Univ Readíng, Reading, England - , 1977. Cowmanship r-anners Xfiekly Bdra 25(87): 3-26 - , 1980. The psycholog!cal relationship between dairy cows and dairy cowmen and irs implícations for animal welfare Int J: Slud A11im Prob 1: 295·98 - , 1984, The psychologic;il interaction between the stoekman and his animals and its influence on performance of p igs and clairy cows. Vet

Rec 115: 84--87 Selman, CE, McEwan, AD and Fisher, EW 197üa. Studies on suckling ín cactle duríng the first eig)11 hours post parrum. 1 Behavioural srudies (dams) Ar1im, Bebav 18: 276--83 - . 1970b Srudies on suckling ín canle duríng Lhe first eight hours post fYJnUm 11 Behavioural siudies ( calves). Anim Behav 18: 284-92, Stricklin, WR and Kautz-Sranavy, CC. 1984 111e role of behavior in cactle producrion: A review Appl. Anim EJbol ll: 359-90 GG J.L Albright Thompson, Cl. 1976 Growth in the Hubbard broiler: [ncrcased ~íze following early handling Dev. FsychobioL 9: 459-64 Waring, GJ1. 1985 Spatial reactivity of animals and appropriate ethological terminology Proc Mfdwesr Anímal Behavior Socicty Meeting. Miamt Univ:, Oxford, OH March 23 Weininger, 0. 1956 The effecrs of early experience on behaviour and growth characteristics j Comp. and Pbysiol PJI 49, 1-9 Wisniewskl, .EW 1977 Behavioral modificacion of milking parlor emrince order in dal!) cactle trained by operam

condltíoning met/1ods. Ph D Disserrar;ion, Purdue Univ, W Ulfayettc, TN Wisniewskl, EW and Albright, JL 1978a. Parlor cmrance bchavior of dairy catde crained co emer a herringbone parlor with conditioning methods. Proc fm Symp, on Mílking Machines LOuisvi!le, KY, National Mastiris Coundl. Inc, Washington, DC p 460-66 - . 1978b Trainin,g heifers and cows co emer-a rnilking parlor by operant conditioning methods Wórld Cong on !Jtbol Appl. to ZOOtechnics l( R): 67