Ž .
Ž .
recognising unfamiliar stockpeople, was moderately P - 0.05 to highly P - 0.01 correlated
with the behaviour of the stockperson. While a number of stockperson behaviour variables were Ž
. correlated P - 0.05 with milk yield, the former variables were generally poorly correlated with
cow behaviour. Therefore these preliminary findings provide evidence that, as seen in the pig industry, sequential relationships may exist between the attitude and behaviour of the stockperson
and the behaviour and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Research is required to further examine these relationships because of the possible implications on cow productivity and welfare.
q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Attitude; Behaviour; Productivity; Fear; Stress; Cows; Stock person; Human–animal interaction
1. Introduction
In modern livestock industries, there is frequent and close contact between the stockperson and hisrher animals. The stockperson is largely responsible for the animal’s
care and maintenance. There is a considerable body of literature, particularly in the pig industry, which suggests that human-animal interactions can have substantial effects on
Ž the behaviour, physiology and productivity of commercial farm animals Hemsworth et
. al., 1993 . For instance, there is evidence of significant interrelationships between the
attitude and behaviour of the stockperson and the behaviour, welfare and productivity of Ž
. farm animals Hemsworth et al., 1993 . Such evidence indicates the potential to improve
animal productivity by improving these human–animal interactions. In particular, fear of humans has been found to be negatively correlated with
productivity: at farms where pigs were highly fearful of humans, reproductive perfor- Ž
. mance was low Hemsworth et al., 1981b, 1989a . Handling studies on both young and
adult pigs have also shown that high fear levels may depress the growth and reproduc- Ž
tive performance of pigs Hemsworth and Barnett, 1991; Hemsworth et al., 1981a, .
1986 . A chronic stress response appears to be implicated in this effect, since a number of studies have found that fearful pigs have a sustained elevation of plasma cortico-
Ž .
steroid concentrations Hemsworth and Barnett, 1991; Hemsworth et al., 1981a, 1986 . Fear of humans may also place an animal’s welfare at risk due to the actions of
sustained elevations of corticosteroids on protein metabolism and the immune system Ž
. Hemsworth and Barnett, 1987 . Furthermore, research at a number of commercial pig
farms has revealed that the nature of the behaviour that the stockperson directed towards hisrher pigs was associated with the pig’s fear of humans: the percentage of negative
interactions used by the stockperson was predictive of the level of fear of humans by Ž
. pigs at that farm Hemsworth et al., 1989a . By assessing the attitudes of commercial pig
Ž .
Ž .
stockpeople, Coleman et al. 1998 and Hemsworth et al. 1989a have shown that the attitude of stockpeople towards pigs is predictive of their behaviour towards pigs. As a
Ž .
result of these studies, Hemsworth et al. 1993 have proposed that a farm animal will exhibit either a series of acute stress responses or a chronic stress response in situations
in which it is in frequent contact with humans and it is fearful of humans. It is the stress response which appears to be the mechanism by which fear of humans can limit growth
and reproduction of pigs.
Considering the amount of contact that a stockperson has with hisrher animals in the dairy industry, it is surprising that only relatively limited research has been conducted on
human–animal interactions in this livestock industry. Limited research suggests that fear Ž
. of humans may affect productivity in the dairy industry. Seabrook 1972 reported some
significant associations between the personality of the stockperson and milk production. In a study of 28 one-person herds, he found that stockpeople at the high producing farms
tended to be introverted and confident. He also suggested that cows in the highest yielding herds were the most willing to return from pasture and enter the milking shed
and were less restless in the presence of the stockperson. This finding suggests that productivity in the dairy industry may in part be related to the quality of human–animal
interactions. Several experimental studies also suggest that handling may affect fear of humans, which in turn may limit the productivity of commercial dairy cows. For
example, handling has been shown to affect the behavioural response of cows to humans Ž
. Boissy and Bouissou, 1988; Boivin et al., 1992; Breuer et al., 1997 and Rushen et al.
Ž .
1999 reported that the presence at milking of an aversive handler, who had previously hit or occasionally used a battery-operated prodder on the cows over a 5-day period,
Ž .
increased the milk not collected at milking residual milk . The existence of a fear–productivity relationship in commercial dairy cows may
provide dairy farmers with the opportunity to reduce fear to improve cow productivity through improvements in their attitude and behaviour towards dairy cows. The objective
of this preliminary study was to examine the relationships between stockperson attitude and behaviour, and cow behaviour and productivity at 31 commercial dairy farms over
one lactation.
2. Material and methods
