Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:35:35.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationships between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople on dairy goat farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

D Mersmann ,
C Schmied-Wagner  and
S Waiblinger
D Mersmann
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Welfare Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria
C Schmied-Wagner
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Welfare Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria
S Waiblinger*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Welfare Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria
*
* Contact for correspondence: Susanne.Waiblinger@vetmeduni.ac.at
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The aim of this study was to investigate the human-animal relationship on dairy goat farms, in particular associations between stockpeople's attitudes towards goats (Capra hircus) and actual behaviour when handling goats and making decisions. Data were collected on 45 Austrian and German dairy goat farms. Attitude questionnaires of 119 stockpeople (58 female, 61 male) were analysed and 14 attitude components were extracted by five Principal Component Analyses (PCA) regarding general attitudes about goats and human-animal relationship, behavioural attitudes about specific human-goat interactions and interactions during milking, and affective attitudes. To investigate associations between stockpeople's attitudes and their subsequent behaviour, we calculated linear and logistic regression analysis on their behaviour during milking (n = 53 milkers) and on management decisions (n = 45 farms). Several attitude components were predictors of behaviour during milking. The attitude ‘Needs of goats’ was included in all models: the higher stock-people scored on ‘Needs of goats’, the more positive interactions they showed and the less likely they were to use negative interactions. Gender influenced five attitude components: females showing greater agreement than males on positive general and affective attitudes, eg ‘Needs of goats.’ Regarding management, the more strongly decision-makers disagreed on using negative interactions during milking, the better was their farm's housing and management. To conclude, these results highlight the importance of the stock-people's attitudes, not only for the interactions with their animals, but also for their decisions related to management and housing. Our results indicate opportunities for improvement of animal welfare by training specifically targeting stockpeople's attitudes.

Keywords

animal welfaregoatshuman-animal relationshipmilker behavioursmall ruminantsstockmanship
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , November 2022 , pp. 529 - 544
Copyright
© 2022 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ajzen, I 1988 Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. Open University Press: Milton Keynes, UKGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I 2002 Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32: 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I and Dasgupta, N 2015 Explicit and implicit beliefs, attitudes, and intention. The role of conscious and unconcsious processes in human behavior. In: Haggard, P and Baruch, E (eds) The Sense of Agency pp 115–144. Oxford University Press: New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190267278.003.0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I and Fishbein, M 1980 Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Prentice-Hall, Inc: Upper Saddle River, USAGoogle Scholar
Albarraccin, D, Johnson, BT, Zanna, MP and Kumkale, GT 2005 Attitudes: introduction and scope. In: Albarraccin D Johnson, BT and Zanna, MP (eds) The Handbook of Attitudes pp 3–19. Psychology Press (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates): New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Allport, GW 1935 Attitudes. In: Murchison, C and Allee, WC (eds) A Handbook of Social Psychology pp 798–844. Clark University Press: Worcester, USAGoogle Scholar
Battini, M, Barbieri, S, Waiblinger, S and Mattiello, S 2016 Validity and feasibility of Human-animal relationship tests for on-farm welfare assessment in dairy goats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 178: 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.03.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bewick, V, Cheek, L and Bal, J 2005 Statistics review 14: Logistic regression. Critical Care 9: 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc3045CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boivin, X and Braastad, BO 1996 Effects of handling during temporary isolation after early weaning on goat kids’ later response to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)01019-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Matthews, LR and Coleman, GJ 2000 Behavioural response to humans and the productivity 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 physiological responses of nonlactating heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00146-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, S, Hadi, AS and Price, B 2000 Regression Analysis by Example. Wiley: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Christov-Moore, L, Simpson, EA, Coudé, G, Grigaityte, K, Iacoboni, M and Ferrari, PF 2014 Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 46: 604–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coleman, GJ 2001 Selection of stockpeople to improve productivity. Fourth Industrial and Organisational Psychology Conference p 30. Sydney, NSW, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Coleman, GJ and Hemsworth, P 2014 Training to improve stockperson beliefs and behaviour towards livestock enhances welfare and productivity. OIE Revue Scientifique et Technique 33: 131–137. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.33.1.2257CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De la Fuente, MFC, Souto, A, Caselli, CB and Schiel, N 2017 People's perception on animal welfare: why does it matter? Ethnobiology and Conservation 6: 18. https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2017-10-6.18-1-7Google Scholar
Eagly, AH and Chaiken, S 1993 The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers: Fort Worth, USAGoogle Scholar
Ellingsen, K, Zanella, AJ, Bjerkas, E and Indrebo, A 2010 The relationship between empathy, perception of pain and attitudes toward pets among Norwegian dog owners. Anthrozoös 23: 231–243. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303710X12750451258931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferstinger, LA 1957 A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Row, Peterson: Evanston, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glocker, ML, Langleben, DD, Ruparel, K, Loughead, JW, Gur, RC and Sachser, N 2009 Baby schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for caretaking in adults. Ethology 115: 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01603.XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Coleman, GJ 2009 The integration of human-animal relations into animal welfare monitoring schemes. Animal Welfare 18: 335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Coleman, GJ and Hansen, C 1989 A study of the relationships between the attitudinal and behavioral profiles of stockpersons and the level of fear of humans and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(89)90099-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 2011 Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals. CAB International: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845936730.0000Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ and Barnett, JL 1994 Improving the attitude and behavior of stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behavior and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)90168-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL and Borg, S 2000 Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 78: 2821–2831. https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.78112821xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, G, Barnett, JL, Borg, S and Dowling, S 2002 The effects of cognitive behavioral intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80: 68–78. https://doi.org/10.2527/2002.80168xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herzog, HA 2007 Gender differences in human-animal interactions: A review. Anthrozoös 20: 7–21. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279307780216687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivemeyer, S 2010 Einfluss der Mensch-Tier-Beziehung auf die Eutergesundheit von Milchkühen. Dissertation, Universität Kassel, Witzenhausen, Germany. [Title translation: Effect of human-animal relationship on udder health of dairy cows]Google Scholar
Ivemeyer, S, Brinkmann, J, March, S, Simantke, C, Winckler, C and Knierim, U 2017 Major organic farm types in Germany and their farm, herd and management characteristics. Organic Agriculture p 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-017-0189-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Kauppinen, T, Vainio, A, Valros, A, Rita, H and Vesala, KM 2010 Improving animal welfare: qualitative and quantitative methodology in the study of farmers’ attitudes. Animal Welfare 19: 523–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kling-Eveillard, F, Knierim, U, Irrgang, N, Gottardo, F, Ricci, R and Dockes, A 2015 Attitudes of farmers towards cattle dehorning. Livestock Science 179: 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, V, Huis in't Veld, EMJ and Vingerhoets, AJJM 2013 The human and animal baby schema effect: Correlates of individual differences. Behavioural Processes 94: 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2013.01.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lensink, J, Boissy, A and Veissier, I 2000 The relationship between farmers’ attitude and behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Annales de Zootechnie 49: 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1051/animres:2000122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maio, GR and Haddock, G 2009 The Psychology of Attitudes & Attitude Change. Sage: Los Angeles, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446214299Google Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, PPG 1993 Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, C 1996 Laufstallhaltung mit behornten Milchkühen. Dissertation, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. [Title translation: Loose housing of horned dairy cows]Google Scholar
Menke, C, Waiblinger, S, Fölsch, DW and Wiepkema, PR 1999 Social behaviour and injuries of horned dairy cows in loose housing systems. Animal Welfare 8: 243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mersmann, D, Schmied-Wagner, C, Nordmann, E, Graml, C and Waiblinger, S 2016 Influences on the avoidance and approach behaviour of dairy goats towards an unfamiliar human: An on-farm study. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 179: 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.02.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mülleder, C and Waiblinger, S 2004 Analyse der Einflussfaktoren auf Tiergerechtheit, Tiergesundheit und Leistung von Milchkühen im Boxenlaufstall auf konventionellen und biologischen Betrieben unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Mensch-Tier-Beziehung. Wien, Austria. [Title translation: Analysis of the influencing factors on animal welfare, animal health and performance of dairy cows in loose housing on conventional and organic farms, with special consideration of the human-animal relationship]Google Scholar
Muri, K, Stubsjøen, SM and Valle, PS 2013 Development and testing of an on-farm welfare assessment protocol for dairy goats. Animal Welfare 22: 385–400. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.223.385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muri, K, Tufte, PA, Skjerve, E and Valle, PS 2012 Human-animal relationships in the Norwegian dairy goat industry: attitudes and empathy towards goats (Part I). Animal Welfare 21: 535–545. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.2.1.4.535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muri, K and Valle, PS 2012 Human-animal relationships in the Norwegian dairy goat industry: assessment of pain and provision of veterinary treatment (Part II). Animal Welfare 21: 547–558. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.2.1.4.547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napolitano, F, De Rosa, G, Girolami, A, Scavone, M and Braghieri, A 2011 Avoidance distance in sheep: Test-retest reliability and relationship with stockmen attitude. Small Ruminant Research 99: 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2011.03.044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Taylor, AA and de Passille, AM 1999 Domestic animals’ fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00089-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmied, C, Boivin, X and Waiblinger, S 2008a Stroking different body regions of dairy cows: Effects on avoidance and approach behavior toward humans. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 596–605. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0360CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmied, C, Waiblinger, S, Scharl, T, Leisch, F and Boivin, X 2008b Stroking of different body regions by a human: Effects on behaviour and heart rate of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109: 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.01.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seabrook, MF 1984 The psychological interaction between the stockman an his animals and its influence on the performance of pigs and dairy cows. Veterinary Record 115: 84–87. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.115.4.84CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabachnick, BG and Fidell, LS 1996 Using Multivariate Statistics. HarperCollins College Publishers: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
van der Ploeg, JD 1993 Animal production as a socio-economic system: heterogeneity, producers and perspectives. In: Huisman, EA (ed) Biological Basis of Sustainable Animal Production Procedings, Fourth Zodiac Symposium. Eaap Publication: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S 2019 Agricultural animals. In: Hosey, G and Melfi, V (eds) Perspectives on Human-Animal Interactions pp 32–58. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Boivin, X, Pedersen, V, Tosi, MV, Janczak, AM, Visser, EK and Jones, RB 2006b 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 and Menke, C 1999 Influence of herd size on human-cow relationships. Anthrozoös 12: 240–247. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279399787000156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Coleman, G 2002 The relationship 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, Menke, C and Coleman, G 2003 Mensch-Tier-Interaktionen beim Melken: Einflussfaktoren und Auswirkungen auf Verhalten und Milchleistung der Kühe. Aktuelle Arbeiten zur angewandten Ethologie 2002 pp 125–133. KTBL: Darmstadt, Germany. [Title translation: Current advances in applied ethology Human-animal interactions during milking: influencing factors and effects on behaviour and milk yield of cows]Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Mülleder, C, Menke, C and Coleman, G 2006a How do farmers’ attitudes impact on animal welfare? The relationship of attitudes to housing design and management on dairy cow farms. In: Amat M & 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, Schmied-Wagner, C, Mersmann, D and Nordmann, E 2011 Social behaviour and injuries in horned and hornless dairy goats. XV ISAH Congress 2011: Animal Hygiene and Sustainable Livestock Production pp 421–422. 3–7 July 2011, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Schmied-Wagner, C, Nordmann, E, Mersmann, D, Szabo, S, Graml, C, von Hof, J, Maschat, K, Grubmüller, T and Winckler, C 2010 Haltung von behornten und unbehornten Milchziegen in Großgruppen. Research project, 100191, Vienna, Austria. [Title translation: Keeping horned and hornless dairy goats in large groups]Google Scholar
Wikman, I, Hokkanen, AH, Pastell, M, Kauppinen, T, Valros, A and Hanninen, L 2016 Attitudes of beef producers to disbudding and perception of pain in cattle. Animal Welfare 25: 429–438. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.25.4.429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mersmann et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 149.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Mersmann et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 111.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Mersmann et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 139.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Mersmann et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 120.1 KB