Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T05:31:33.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Negative attitudes of Danish dairy farmers to their livestock correlates negatively with animal welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

SN Andreasen ,
P Sandøe ,
S Waiblinger  and
B Forkman
SN Andreasen
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark
P Sandøe
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg, Denmark
S Waiblinger
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Welfare Science, Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria
B Forkman*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence: bjf@sund.ku.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Positive stockperson attitudes to his or her animals is associated with a positive behavioural response in the animals and in other indicators assumed to reflect a high level of welfare as well as increased productivity, eg in milk yield. Conversely, negative attitudes have been found to have the opposite effect. However, so far, no attempt has been made to link the attitudes of stockpersons to outcomes of comprehensive protocols assessing animal welfare at farm level. In the study reported here, attitudes of Danish dairy farmers are compared with the on-farm welfare of dairy cows as assessed by the Welfare Quality ® (WQ) protocol. In 35 dairy herds the welfare was assessed, and the farmers filled in a self-report questionnaire on their attitudes to dairy cows and how they should be handled. The farmers on the farms with the lowest total welfare score could, according to the self-report questionnaire, be characterised as those with a negative attitude to the handling of cows (eg less strongly disliked to kick a cow or use a stick, when necessary). As expected, farmer behavioural attitudes regarding different situations correlated: for example, farmers who liked more to work with and have positive interactions with the cows also agreed more on patient handling and the importance of regular positive contact. Furthermore, farms where farmers gave cows a positive characteristic were found to score highly on the WQ principle ‘Appropriate behaviour’.

Keywords

animal welfaredairy cowsfarmer attitudehuman-animal relationshipmilk yieldWelfare Quality®
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 89 - 98
Copyright
© 2020 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, F, Christley, R and Campe, A 2019 Invited review: Examining farmers’ personalities and attitudes as possible risk fac-tors for dairy cattle health, welfare, productivity, and farm man-agement: A systematic scoping review. Journal of Dairy Science 102(5): 3805–3824. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I 2005 Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour, Second Edition. Open University Press: Maidenhead, UKGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, SN, Wemelsfelder, F, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2013 The correlation of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment with Welfare Quality® protocol outcomes in on-farm welfare assess-ment of dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 143: 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, H, Miele, M, Veissier, I and Jones, B 2013 Improving farm animal welfare. Science and society working together: the Welfare Quality® approach. Wageningen Academic Publishers: The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-770-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X, Lensink, J, Tallet, C and Veissier, I 2003 Stockmanship and farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 479–492Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007 Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225–228Google Scholar
Bowell, VA, Rennie, LJ, Tierney, G, Lawrence, AB and Haskell, MJ 2003 Relationship between building design, manage-ment system and dairy cow welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 547–552Google Scholar
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Matthews, LR and Coleman, GJ 2000 Behavioural response to humans and the pro-ductivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00097-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 2003 The effect of positive or negative handling on the behavioural and physiolog-ical responses of non-lactating heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00146-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budaev, SV 2010 Using principal components and factor analysis in animal behaviour research: caveats and guidelines. Ethology 116:472–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01758.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceballos, MC, Sant’Anna, AC, Góis, KCR, Ferraudo, AS, Negrao, JA and da Costa, MJRP 2018 Investigating the relation-ship between human-animal interactions, reactivity, stress response and reproductive performance in Nellore heifers. Livestock Science 217: 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livs-ci.2018.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesterton, RN, Pfeiffer, DU, Morris, RS and Tanner, CM 1989 Environmental and behavioural factors affecting the preva-lence of foot lameness in New Zealand dairy herds – a case-con-trol study. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 37: 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.1989.35587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, GJ, McGregor, M, Hemsworth, PH, Boyce, J and Dowling, S 2003 The relationship between beliefs, attitudes and observed behaviours of abattoir personnel in the pig industry. Applied Animal Behavior Science 82: 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00057-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J, Ladewig, J and Petherick, C 1996 Dairy calves’ discrimination of people based on previous handling. Journal of Animal Science 74: 969–974. https://doi.org 10.2527/1996.745969xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
des Roches, A, Veissier, I, Boivin, X, Gilot-Fromont, E and Mounier, L 2016 A prospective exploration of farm, farmer, and animal characteristics in human-animal relationships: An epidemi-ological survey. Journal of Dairy Science 99: 5573–5585. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10633CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feaver, J, Mendl, M and Bateson, P 1986 A method rating the individual distinctiveness of domestic cats. Animal Behaviour 34:1016–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80160-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukasawa, M, Kawahata, M, Higashiyama, Y and Komatsu, T 2017 Relationship between the stockperson's attitudes and dairy productivity in Japan. Animal Science Journal 88: 394–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12652CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gorsuch, RL 1997 Exploratory factor analysis: its role in item analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment 68: 532–560. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6803_5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, LE, Hedges, VJ, Schukken, YH, Blowey, RW and Packington, AJ 2002 The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 2250–2256https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74304-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hair, J, Anderson, R, Tatham, R and Black, W 1998 Multivariate Data Analysis, Fifth Edition. Prentice Hall: New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
Hanna, D, Sneddon, IA and Beattie, VE 2009 The relationship between the stockperson's personality and attitudes and the pro-ductivity of dairy cows. Animal 3: 737–743. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109003991CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanna, D, Sneddon, IA, Beattie, VE and Breuer, K 2006 Effects of the stockperson on dairy cow behaviour and milk yield. Journal of Animal Science 82: 791–797. https://doi.org/10.1017/ASC2006092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH 2003 Human-animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00280-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Coleman, GJ 1993 The human-animal relationship in agriculture and its consequences for the animal. Animal Welfare 2: 33–51Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 2011 Human-Livestock Interactions, The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals, Second Edition. CAB International: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845936730.0000Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL and Borg, S 2000 Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivi-ty of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 78: 2821–2831. https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.78112821xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL, Borg, S and Dowling, S 2002 The effects of cognitive behavioural intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behaviour and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80: 68–78. https://doi.org/10.2527/2002.80168xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ivemeyer, S, Knierim, U and Waiblinger, S 2011 Effect of human-animal relationship and management on udder health in Swiss dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 5890–5902. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-4048CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lensink, J, Boissy, A and Veissier, I 2000 The relationship between farmers’ attitude and behaviour towards calves, and pro-ductivity of veal units. Annales de Zootechnie 49: 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1051/animres:2000122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maller, CJ, Hemsworth, PH, Ng, KT, Jongman, EJ, Coleman, GJ and Arnold, NA 2005 The relationships between characteris-tics of milking sheds and the attitudes to dairy cows, working con-ditions, and quality of life of dairy farmers. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 56: 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR04148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiello, S, Arduino, D, Tosi, MV and Carenzi, C 2005 Survey on housing, management and welfare of dairy cattle in tie-stalls in western Italian Alps. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A55: 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064700510009270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, RR and Costa, PT 1997 Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist 52: 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.52.5.509CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Kane, H, Ferguson, E, Kaler, J and Green, L 2017 Associations between sheep farmer attitudes, beliefs, emotions and personality, and their barriers to uptake of best practice: The example of footrot. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 139: 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.05.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phythian, C, Michalopoulou, E, Duncan, J and Wemelsfelder, F 2013 Inter-observer reliability of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment of sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144: 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regula, G, Danuser, J, Spycher, B and Wechsler, B 2004 Health and welfare of dairy cows in different husbandry systems in Switzerland. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 66: 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.09.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rouha-Mülleder, C, Iben, C, Wagner, E, Laaha, G, Troxler, J and Waiblinger, S 2009 Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 92: 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.07.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J, de Passillé, AMB and Munksgaard, L 1999 Fear of people by cows and effects on milk yield, behavior, and heart rate at milking. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 720–727. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75289-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seabrook, MF 1972 A study to determine the influence of the herdsman's personality on milk yield. Journal of the British Society for Agricultural Labour Science 1: 45–59Google Scholar
Trevisi, E, Bionaz, M, Piccioli-Cappelli, F and Bertoni, G 2006 The management of intensive dairy farms can be improved for better welfare and milk yield. Livestock Science 103: 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S 2019 Agricultural animals. In: Hosey, G and Melfi, V (eds) Anthrozoology: Human-Animal Interactions in Domesticated and Wild Animals pp 32–58. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198753629.003.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Baars, T and Menke, C 2001 Understanding the cows: The central role of human-animal relationship in keeping horned dairy cows in loose housing. In: Hovi, M and Bouilhol, M (eds) Human-Animal Relationship: Stockmanship and Housing in Organic Livestock Systems Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop of the International Network on Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture (NAHWOA) pp 64–78. 21-24 October 2001, Clermont-Ferrand, FranceGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Boivin, X, Pedersen, V, Tosi, MV, Janczak, AM, Veissier, EK and Jones, RB 2006a Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 185–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Coleman, G 2002 The relation-ship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00155-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Mülleder, C and Menke, C 2006b The human-animal relationship and animal health management. Proceedings of the Organic Congress pp 498–499. 30-31 May 2006, Odense DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Mülleder, C, Menke, C and Coleman, G 2006c How do farmers’ attitudes impact on animal welfare? The relationship of attitudes to housing design and management on dairy cow farms In: Amat, M and Mariotti, V (eds) The Importance of Attitudes, Values and Economics to the Welfare and Conservation of Animals. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the International Society for Anthrozoology pp 55–56. 5-6 October 2006, Barcelona SpainGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S and Spoolder, H 2007 Quality of storkperson-ship. In: Velarde, A and Geers, R (eds) On-Farm Monitoring of Pig Welfare pp 159–166. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar