Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review

By S. Waiblinger, X. Boivin, V. Pedersen, M. Tosi, Andrew M Janczak, E. Visser, Robert B. Jones. 2006

664 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

Subfields: Animal Science and Zoology, Genetics, Small Animals

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d143587a4c78526a21329e90d470eb360b37dc5f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Animal Science and Zoology

In Genetics

In Small Animals

Citations in the corpus

Human-animal interactions, relationships and bonds: a review and analysis of the literature (2014, neutral): “Conversely, HAI/HAR/HAB researchers within the agricultural (Hemsworth, 2003; Waiblinger et al., 2006) and zoo (Hosey, 2008, 2013) contexts have been more concerned”
Reliability and inter-test relationship of tests for on-farm assessment of dairy cows’ relationship to humans (2008, background): “This suggests that AvoidB is a valid measure of the cows’ relationship to humans in loose-housed dairy cows in terms of convergent validity, inquiring if ‘conceptually related measures are associated with one another’ (Waiblinger et al., 2006).”
The potential of the human-animal relationship as an environmental enrichment for the welfare of zoo-housed animals. (2011, background): “Finally, a positive relationship may exist if an anial is not fearful and instead shows some confidence with eople (Waiblinger et al., 2006).”
Effects of human-animal relationship on animal productivity and welfare (2020, methodology): “According to Waiblinger et al (2006) and Ellingsen et al (2014), human-animal relationships (HAR) can be defined as “ the degree of relation or distance that exists between an animal and a human being, perceived, developed and expressed through their mutual behaviour” .”
A review of the human-horse relationship (2008, background): “The use of such tests for assessing how the horse “categorizes” the humans in terms of positive, negative or neutral stimulus (Waiblinger et al., 2006) implies that horses are considered as being able of generalization from their daily contact to humans to an interaction with an unfamiliar person.”
A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. (2007, background): “These tests are usually done one by one, but in some studies combined tests are carried out for example by including a novel object or a human, another calf or food in the novel environment right from the start [28,42,43].”
A preliminary model of human–animal relationships in the zoo (2008, methodology): “We would expect the development of a HAR to be contingent upon each party being able to recognise the other as an individual, but in principle there is no reason why broader HARs between one person and several animals, or vice versa, may occur if the properties of one partner’s behaviour are general”
Impact of good practices of handling training on beef cattle welfare and stockpeople attitudes and behaviors (2018, background): “Moreover, for adult cattle, previous specific interactions and their associated predictability during handling may influence their behavior (Waiblinger et al., 2006).”