Influences on the avoidance and approach behaviour of dairy goats towards an unfamiliar human—An on-farm study

It is widely assumed that the quality of human–animal interactions may have a strong impact on animals’ living conditions and is fundamental to improving farm animal welfare. This work aims to evaluate the effectiveness of methods for assessing and monitoring the welfare of lactating goats. In particular, attention was paid to the methods regarding the assessment of the human–animal relationship. The experimental protocol included three tests and observations in the milking parlour, namely: avoidance distance in the pen, avoidance distance at the manger, approach test within 2 min and behavioural observations of stockmen and animals during milking. Fourteen dairy goat farms located in the province of Potenza (Southern Italy) with flocks ranging in size from 67 to 450 lactating goats were used. All farms raised the Rossa Mediterranean goat breed. The percentage of goats that permitted themselves to be touched at the manger (mean ± SD: 12.36 ± 9.50) was higher than that found in the pen (9.67 ± 11.86) and within 2 min inside the pen (8.19 ± 13.78). The avoidance distance at the manger (0.63 ± 0.28 m) was shorter than that recorded in the pen (1.19 ± 0.58 m). Avoidance distance at the manger was positively correlated with that in the pen (Spearman correlation test (rs) = 0.607; p < 0.01), as was the percentage of goats touched at the manger and in the pen (rs = 0.647; p < 0.01). Approximately 60% of the stockman interactions observed during milking were neutral, while positive and negative interactions had similar values to each other, approximately 20%. The number of neutral stockman interactions was positively correlated with the percentage of goats moving when approached at a distance >1 m (rs = 0.799; p < 0.001) and was negatively correlated with the animals touched at the manger (rs = −0.607; p < 0.05), in the pen (rs = −0.613; p < 0.05) and within 2 min (rs = −0.669; p < 0.01). As regards the degree of association between the behaviour of the milker and the animals during the milking routine, the percentage of neutral interactions tended to be positively correlated only with the number of kicks performed by the animals (rs = 0.476; p < 0.10). It is concluded that avoidance distance at the manger and in the pen, as for other farm animals, are valid tests to evaluate the human–animal relationship in goats. In addition, avoidance distance at the manger may reliably replace the test performed in the pen.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 74%

Human–Animal Interactions in Dairy Goats

Carnovale

Marcone

Serrapica

et al. 2023

“…A set of four HAR tests was investigated for validity and feasibility by Reference [ 60 ]. The authors recommended two of their tests that reflect the HAR of goats and that showed good on-farm feasibility.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first test consisted of a person walking parallel to the feed barrier. Reference [ 60 ] mentions that the distance to the feed barrier still needed adjustment as there was limited space on some farms. HAR assessments with a moving test subject are particularly difficult to perform because factors such as the speed of movement and the posture of the human can influence the results [ 55 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal-Based Indicators for On-Farm Welfare Assessment in Goats

Minnig

Zufferey

Thomann

et al. 2021

This review describes the current state of knowledge relating to scientific literature on welfare indicators for goats. Our aim was to provide an overview of animal-based indicators for on-farm welfare assessments. We performed a literature search and extracted 96 relevant articles by title, abstract, and full-text screening. Out of these articles, similar indicators were aggregated to result in a total of 32 welfare indicators, some of which were covered in multiple articles, others in only a single one. We discuss a set of three established assessment protocols containing these indicators, as well as all individual indicators which were covered in more than one article. As single indicators, we identified lameness, body condition score (BCS), qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA), and human–animal relationship (HAR) tests with substantial evidence for sufficient validity to assess welfare in goats. A multitude of indicators (e.g., hair coat condition) was studied less intensively but was successfully used for welfare assessments. For some indicators (e.g., oblivion, lying behaviour), we highlight the need for future research to further validate them or to optimise their use in on-farm welfare assessments. Moreover, further investigations need to include kids, bucks, and meat and fibre goats, as well as extensively kept goats as the literature predominantly focuses on dairy goats in intensive production systems.

“…Moreover, emotional bonds between humans and companion animals can have a profound positive effect on animal welfare, with humans providing comfort in stressful situations and offering social companionship [ 2 , 35 , 36 ]. Finally, HAIs can also affect animal welfare indirectly by influencing human perceptions and attitudes [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. For example, affiliative HAIs such as engaging in playful behavior [ 44 ], interacting physically [ 45 ] and observing pro-social behaviors between conspecifics in naturalistic settings [ 46 ], can foster empathy in humans, which can then increase public support for stricter welfare standards and conservation efforts [ 47 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Koi (Cyprinus rubrofuscus) Seek Out Tactile Interaction with Humans: General Patterns and Individual Differences

Fife-Cook

Franks

2021

The study of human–animal interactions has provided insights into the welfare of many species. To date, however, research has largely focused on human relationships with captive mammals, with relatively little exploration of interactions between humans and other vertebrates, despite non-mammals constituting the vast majority of animals currently living under human management. With this study, we aimed to address this gap in knowledge by investigating human–fish interactions at a community garden/aquaponics learning-center that is home to approximately 150 goldfish (Carassius auratus) and seven adult and two juvenile koi (Cyprinus rubrofuscus). After a habituation period (July–September 2019) during which time the fish were regularly provided with the opportunity to engage with the researcher’s submerged hand, but were not forced to interact with the researcher, we collected video data on 10 non-consecutive study days during the month of October. This procedure produced 18~20-min interaction sessions, 10 during T1 (when the experimenter first arrived and the fish had not been fed) and eight during T2 (20–30 min after the fish had been fed to satiation; two sessions of which were lost due equipment malfunction). Interactions between the researcher and the seven adult koi were coded from video based on location (within reach, on the periphery, or out of reach from the researcher) and instances of physical, tactile interaction. Analyses revealed that overall, koi spent more time than expected within reach of the researcher during both T1 (p < 0.02) and T2 (p < 0.03). There were also substantial differences between individuals’ overall propensity for being within-reach and engaging in physical interaction. These results show that koi will voluntarily interact with humans and that individual koi display unique and consistent patterns of interaction. By providing quantitative data to support anecdotal claims that such relationships exist around the world, this research contributes to the ongoing discoveries highlighting the profound dissonance between how humans think about and treat fish and who fish actually are, thereby emphasizing the necessity of stronger moral and legal protections for fishes.