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
2.1. Subjects Behaviour observations and productivity measurements were conducted at 31 com-
mercial dairy farms in SE Victoria, Australia over a 2-year period. The study was Ž
. conducted in two time replicates, with 15 farms studied in the first year replicate 1 and
Ž .
the other 16 farms in the second year replicate 2 . These farms had a winter calving with a peak occurring in mid to late winter and the first month of lactation at the farm
was defined as the month in which most cows calved. The animals were grazed outdoors on pasture all year round and milking occurred twice a day, morning and afternoon.
Farms were selected on the basis of availability of milk production records, herd size of 100–200 cows, predominantly Holstein–Friesian cows, herringbone milking-shed con-
figuration and supplementary feeding during milking.
2.2. ObserÕationsr measurements Observations and testing were conducted by 8 trained experimenters. Video records
of human and cow behaviours at commercial dairy farms were used to train the
observers and a high degree of concordance was achieved between observers’ records Ž
. see Coleman et al., 1998 for assessing interobserver reliability .
2.3. Confidentiality of project objectiÕes In order to reduce the influence of observers on the stockperson’s behaviour, the
detailed objective of the study was not revealed to the participants until the study was completed. Instead, the reason given to the farmers for conducting observations was that
the relationships between a range of farm factors, cow behaviour and cow production were being examined. Ethics approval was obtained for these procedures and stockpeo-
ple were debriefed at the end of the study.
The following observations and measurements were taken at each farm. 2.3.1. BehaÕioural response of cows to humans
To assess the cows’ fear of humans, the approach behaviour of cows to a stationary Ž
experimenter was measured in a standard approach test at each farm Hemsworth et al., .
1996 at months 3 and 5 of lactation. The test was conducted in a 6 = 6 m arena during one morning and one afternoon milking session at each of these two stages of lactation
and a total of 35–50 cows were individually tested at each farm over these two test sessions.
Due to some difficulty in erecting the arena on sloping ground in the first replicate, the shape and construction of the arena were modified slightly in the second replicate.
Although the floor areas of the two arenas were similar, the shape of the arena was Ž
. changed from a square arena 6 = 6 m to an octagonal one with a maximum width of
Ž .
7.4 m. The height remained the same 2 m but the second arena was of a lighter construction to aid erection on difficult terrains. Both arenas were constructed of
aluminium posts and rails and provided almost unrestricted visual access to events outside the arena. The approach behaviour of cows at the 15 farms in year 1 was
assessed in the 6 = 6 m square arena, while that of the cows at the 16 farms in year 2 was assessed in the octagonal arena. At each farm the arena was set up before the
afternoon milking, on pasture near the milking shed and adjacent to the exit lane in which the cows returned to pasture. The selected cows for testing were chosen at
milking so that half came from each of the two milking sides in the herring-bone shed and these selected cows were well represented throughout the milking session and
within each of the front, middle and rear positions in the shed. Individual cows were
Ž only tested once over these four sessions two milkings at each of 3 and 5 mo. of
. lactation and selected cows were held in groups of 5 in a yard within 50 m of the arena
to ensure easy access for testing, while reducing visual contact with the cow that was under test.
For the test, cows were individually introduced into the arena and after a 2-min familiarisation period, the experimenter entered with a stool, avoiding closely approach-
ing the cow, and sat stationary on the stool against and in the middle of the side of the arena opposite the entrance and facing the entrance. The approach behaviour of the cow
to the experimenter was observed for the next 3 min. Areas within 1, 2, 3 and 4 m of the experimenter were marked on the ground using powdered chalk. One experimenter was
used as the human stimulus in tests at all farms and this experimenter wore clean long-sleeved cloth overalls and clean boots. From these data, the following variables
Ž .
name assigned to the variable is given in parentheses were calculated: -the time taken for the cow to approach within 1, 2 and 3 m of the experimenter
Ž .
TIMETO1, TIMETO2 and TIMETO3 ; Ž
. -the cumulative time spent within these areas TIMEIN1, TIMEIN2 and TIMEIN3 ;
Ž -the time taken to physically interact with the experimenter defined as within 5 cm of
. Ž .
the experimenter TIMETOI ;
Ž .
-the number of times the cow physically interacted with the experimenter INTER . At the end of testing, each animal was returned to the herd on pasture. The average
farm data for each of these variables were used in the analyses. 2.3.2. Cow behaÕiour at milking
The behaviour of all lactating cows in the milking shed was observed at each farm during each observation session. These observations at each farm were conducted by
three of four trained observers, one observer per session and the observations were made at three morning milkings during the first, second and third or fourth months of lactation
Ž .
for the herd. The number of flinch and step responses FS and flinch, step and kick Ž
. responses FSK by cows were recorded when it was estimated that the stockperson was
approximately 0.5 m from the cow. A FS was defined as a step or lifting of the foot in which the hoof was not raised to the height of the udder and a FSK was defined as a
step or kick in which the hoof was raised at least to the height of the udder. These observations were designed to give a measure of cow restlessness when in close contact
with humans in the shed and were conducted during the following discrete activities, forcing the cows into position for milking in the shed and attaching and removing cups.
It was therefore possible to obtain the sum of these behaviours at each farm for each of
Ž the activities i.e., FSforce and FSKforce, FSon and FSKon, and FStotal and FSKtotal
Ž ..
‘‘total’’ refers to the total for all activities . Furthermore it was possible to combine the Ž
averages of behaviours for each activity i.e., FS q FSKforce, FS q FSKon, and FS q .
FSKtotal . 2.3.3. Human behaÕiour obserÕations
At each farm the behaviour of the stockpeople was observed during three afternoon milkings made during the first, second and third or fourth months of lactation by three of
four trained observers, one observer per session. Human behaviour was recorded during the following discrete activities: moving cows into the shed from the holding yard;
forcing the cows into position for milking in the shed; attaching and removing cups; and moving cows out of the shed after milking.
Human tactile interactions with the cows were classified as either positive or negative Ž
. in nature. Positive tactile interactions variable used in analysis was assigned P1
included pats, strokes or the hand resting on the back, legs or flanks of the animal. Negative tactile interactions included those behaviours used by stockpeople to move the
animals such as slaps, pushes or hits with the hand or an object such as a plastic pipe. There were two types of negative tactile interactions recorded; those that were moder-
Ž .
ately aversive and these included moderate slaps, pushes and hits N1 , and those that Ž
. were more aversive and these included forceful slaps, pushes, hits and tail-twists N2 .
The moderate negative interactions differed from the positive ones in that for the former interaction some perceptible noise was associated with contact and the intention was
generally to move the animals. From these observations an estimate was made of the mean number of bouts of these behaviours that cows at the farm received from the
Ž .
stockpeople during each milking session i.e., P1, N1, N2 . A combined variable of the Ž
. Ž
. Ž .
number of positive P1 and negative N1 and N2 interactions I was used in the Ž
. analysis. In addition, the number of arm waves variable assigned W was recorded and
Ž .
vocalisations e.g., talking, shouting, whistling and claping were recorded as quiet or Ž
. Ž
soft vocalisations variable assigned V1
or loud or harsh vocalisations variable
. assigned V2 . A bout criterion interval of 5 s was chosen to separate one bout from
another. Ž
. In the analysis, the two types of negative tactile interactions N1 and N2 were
Ž .
combined to measure overall frequency of negative interactions NEG and to measure the percentage of these negative tactile interactions, these three variables were expressed
Ž .
as a ratio to the total number of tactile interactions N1, N2 and NEG . In addition to the above collation of the mean number of bouts of these tactile, visual and auditory
interactions that cows at each farm received, each of these interactions were also collated for each of the four activities: moving cows into the shed from the holding yard;
forcing cows into position for milking in the shed; attaching and removing cups; and moving cows out of the shed after milking. Thus, for example, the mean number of N1
interactions received per cow at each farm when being forced into position in the milking shed was also collated.
An additional two visits, one in summer and one in winter, were made by one of two trained observers to each farm to assess the speed at which the cows were being moved
by the stockpeople from pasture to the milking shed. Speed was estimated over the last Ž
. 50 m along a race or laneway into the holding yard SPEED50 adjacent to the milking
shed at an afternoon milking. By timing the entry and exit of the stockperson in this 50 m race and marking out the last 50 m into 10 equal length segments, the observer was
able to record the average speed of the herd and the average distance between the last
Ž .
cow in the herd and the stockperson andror dog depending on which was closer at Ž
. each 10 m interval DISTANCE . It was common for both motor bikes and dogs to be
used by stockpeople in moving cows from pasture to the holding yards for milking. 2.4. Attitude questionnaire
At the completion of the observations at each farm, each stockperson was asked to answer a questionnaire in the belief that hershe was assisting with the assessment of
cow behaviour at hisrher farm. The first section of the questionnaire consisted of 25 items designed to assess the stockperson’s beliefs about the characteristics of cows. For
example questions in this section included, ‘‘Dairy cows are smelly animals’’ and ‘‘Dairy cows are greedy’’. Stockpeople were requested to respond to each statement on
a five-point scale, defined by the labels: disagree strongly; disagree; neither disagree nor agree; agree; agree strongly.
The second section of the questionnaire contained 57 items that were designed to assess the stockperson’s attitude to working with cows. In each attitude category, the
questions were asked about cows at different ages, cows or heifers. For example, in this section questions such as ‘‘To what extent do your cows flinch when you put the cups
on?’’ and ‘‘How easy are your dairy cows to move into the milking shed at the ages listed below?’’ were asked. The stockperson was asked to answer these questions using
Ž a seven point scale for example in the first question above, the scale ranged from ‘‘ a
lot’’ to ‘‘ very little’’, while for the second question, it ranged from ‘‘ very easy’’ to .
‘‘ very difficult’’ . To reduce the number of variables in the analysis, a composite variable was created.
Ž .
This composite variable included a number of questions that were moderately P - 0.05 correlated with the overall frequency of negative tactile interactions and these questions
sought information on beliefs about patting and talking to cows, ease of movement of cows and cows recognising unfamiliar stockpeople. In collating the results of the
responses to these questions, scores for each question were adjusted so that a high score for each response reflected a positive attitude. The responses to these questions were
Ž .
then grouped and summed to give this composite score ATTITUDE SCORE , with a high score indicating a positive attitude.
2.5. Incidence of lameness The incidence of lameness was also monitored during two morning milking visits to
each farm, one in summer and one in winter. A trained observer assessed the lameness of all cows as they exited the milking shed. Each cow was given a score of 0 to 3, where
Ž .
0 was defined as not lame, 1 was defined as mildly lame slight limp — no head bob , 2 Ž
. Ž
was lame obviously lame — head bob and 3 was very lame head bob and held leg up .
for a period of seconds . 2.6. Production records
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Records on total milk yield l, YIELD , protein kg, PROTEIN and fat kg, FAT over the lactation were collected for each farm from either the milk factories or a herd
improvement monitoring scheme. The records from the herd improvement monitoring scheme were based on monthly testing of each herd and were provided on a cow
average per farm per annum basis, while the factory records were calculated from each milk delivery from the farm to the factory and were provided as yearly totals for the
farm. These latter records were converted to a per cow per year value by dividing the totals by the maximum number of cows observed during the study.
2.7. Statistical analyses Ž
A correlation analysis and a step-wise regression analysis Genstat 5, Lawes Agricul- .
tural Trust, Rothamsted Experimental Station, UK were used to examine the relation-
ships, based on farm averages, between the human and animal variables at the farms. Complete data were only available on 29 farms since the owners of two farms withdrew
their permission to conduct the observations on the approach behaviour of cows to the experimenter in the standard test. These two farmers were concerned that their animals
may injure themselves in attempting to escape from the novel arena.
The size and shape of the arena differed slightly in the two years and an analysis of Ž
. variance indicated a significant
P - 0.05 difference between the two years in the Ž
approach behaviour of cows to the experimenter e.g., TIMEIN3, means of 48.1 and Ž
. .
32.4 s, LSD P s 0.05 s 12.8 but not in any other behavioural or production variables. To correct for any effect that arena design may have had, the farm averages for each of
the four variables recorded in this test were standardised by subtracting the values for Ž
. the farm from the mean for the replicate year and dividing by the standard deviation
for the replicate. Correlation and regression analyses were performed on these standard- ised values.
Table 1 Mean and ranges of some of the main cow and stockperson variables studied
Variables Mean
Range Cow productiÕity
Ž .
Milk yield lrcowryear, ‘‘YIELD’’ 5632
4323–6662 Ž
. Milk protein kgrcowryear, ‘‘PROTEIN’’
185 142–215
Ž .
Milk fat kgrcowryear, ‘‘FAT’’ 235
191–276 Cow BehaÕiour
a
Ž .
Time spent within 3m of experimenter s, ‘‘TIMEIN3’’
40.0 13.0–85.4
Number of FS and FSK responses per cow per milking during: Ž
. Cups attached ‘‘FSqFSKon’’
0.97 0.21–2.30
Ž .
Cups attached ‘‘FSKon’’ 0.10
0.01–0.35 Ž
. Overall ‘‘FSqFSKtotal’’
2.21 0.56–5.38
Ž .
Overall ‘‘FSKtotal’’ 0.21
0.02–0.54 Stockperson behaÕiour
Ž .
Number of positive tactile interactions P1rcowrmilking 0.11
0.02–0.40 Ž
. Number of negative tactile interactions N1rcowrmilking
0.32 0.09–0.84
Ž .
Number of highly negative tactile interactions N2rcowrmilking 0.05
0–0.13 Ž
. Percentage of negative tactile interactions , NEG
74.0 30.3–98.2
Ž .
Percentage of highly negative interactions , N2 9.5
0–29.5 Ž
. Number of soft, quite vocalizations V1rcowrmilking
0.31 0.10–0.63
Ž .
Number of loud, harsh vocalizations V2rcowrmilking 0.05
0–0.12 Ž
. Number of waves Wrcowrmilking
0.03 0–0.12
Ž .
Speed in moving cows from pasture over last 50 m SPEED, mrs 0.60
0.07–2.08 Stockperson attitude
Subscale which included questionnaire items of petting and talking 29.6
14.0–45.5 to cows, ease of movement of cows and cows recognising unfamiliar
b
Ž .
stockpersons ‘‘ATTITUDE SCORE’’
a
Analyses conducted on the standardised values of TIMEIN3.
b
High score representing a positive attitude.
3. Results
