This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 07 September 2015, At: 01:09

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,
London, SW1P 1WG

Anthrozoös: A multidisciplinary journal of the

interactions of people and animals
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfan20

Exploring Stock Managers' Perceptions of the

Human—Animal Relationship on Dairy Farms and an
Association with Milk Production
a a
Catherine Bertenshaw & Peter Rowlinson
a
School of Agriculture and Rural Development, Newcastle University, UK
Published online: 28 Apr 2015.

To cite this article: Catherine Bertenshaw & Peter Rowlinson (2009) Exploring Stock Managers' Perceptions of the
Human—Animal Relationship on Dairy Farms and an Association with Milk Production, Anthrozoös: A multidisciplinary journal
of the interactions of people and animals, 22:1, 59-69

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303708X390473

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 AZ VOL. 22(1).qxp:Layout 1
ANTHROZOÖS
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 07 September 2015
Address for correspondence:
Dr Catherine Bertenshaw,
VETNET LLN North East and
Yorkshire Regional Manager,
School of Agriculture,
Food and Rural Develop-
ment, Newcastle University,
Newcastle NE1 7RU, UK.
E-mail:
catherine.bertenshaw@
ncl.ac.uk
1/5/09 4:27 PM Page 59
VOLUME 22, ISSUE 1 REPRINTS AVAILABLE PHOTOCOPYING © ISAZ 2009
PP. 59–69 DIRECTLY FROM PERMITTED PRINTED IN THE UK
THE PUBLISHERS BY LICENSE ONLY
Exploring Stock Managers’
Perceptions of the Human–
Animal Relationship on Dairy
Farms and an Association
with Milk Production
Catherine Bertenshaw and Peter Rowlinson
School of Agriculture and Rural Development, Newcastle University, UK
ABSTRACT A human’s attitude towards animals influences their behavior
around animals, thus affecting the quality of the human–animal relationship
(HAR). Many scientific studies have demonstrated that cattle’s fear-
response to humans affects their productivity, behavior, and welfare. In the
scientific literature thus far it is believed that fear of humans is the pre-
dominant relationship on dairy farms. Via a postal questionnaire, we gath-
ered subjective information from 516 stock managers on reported
indicators of the HAR and their opinions of the HAR on UK dairy farms. We
found that only 21% of farmers believed that dairy cattle were fearful of
humans. Respondents accepted that humans can have an impact on
cattle temperament, as 48% of respondents attributed a cow’s docility to
previous human contact and reasons given for poor milking temperament
Anthrozoös DOI: 10.2752/175303708X390473
included previous negative experiences with humans (9%). Ninety percent
of respondents thought cows had feelings, and 78% thought cows were
intelligent. Higher heifer milk yields (≥ 200 liters) were found in herds where
the stock manager thought it important to know every individual animal,
although this was only a trend (p = 0.14). On farms where cows were
called by name, milk yield was 258 liters higher than on farms where this
was not the case (p < 0.001). As a person’s attitude is a good predictor of
their behavior, these subjective reports suggest UK dairy farmers have a
good quality of human–animal relationship with their animals. The pattern
for improved milk yield and behavior based on increased human attention
to the individual animal requires validation, but it is an encouraging finding
based on reported opinions analyzed against objective production data in
a survey of commercial farms.
Keywords: attitudes, dairy cattle, milk production, stock manager, stock-
personship
59
 AZ VOL. 22(1).qxp:Layout 1 1/5/09 4:27 PM Page 60

Exploring Stock Managers’ Perceptions of the Human–Animal Relationship…

❖
Studies into human–animal relationships (HAR) involving farm animals have found wel-
fare and production benefits when the relationship improves (Rushen, Taylor and de
Passille 1999). Waiblinger et al.’s (2006) review of these studies catalogues the effects
that negative responses to humans can have on an animal, including detrimental impacts on fer-
tility, growth rates, milk yield, meat quality, behavior when handled, and incidents of injury. Posi-
tive treatment (PT: brushing, stroking), which promotes a positive affective state (pleasure) in many
cows (Bertenshaw and Rowlinson 2008), improves the HAR. This improvement has been found
to confer benefits on welfare (e.g., lowered cortisol responses: Boissy and Bouissou 1988; heart
rate: Rushen et al. 2001), production (milk let down and flow rate: Bertenshaw and Rowlinson
2001), and behavior in management tasks (loading onto a trailer: Lensink et al. 2000; during
veterinary examination per rectum: Waiblinger et al. 2004; during milking: Bertenshaw et al. 2008).
A variety of studies have found attitude to be a reliable predictor of a person’s behavior
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 07 September 2015

around animals (Hemsworth et al. 1989). Rennie et al. (2003), through questionnaires, have
highlighted differences in the quality of stockmanship, in conjunction with on-farm validation
of responses through observing stockperson interaction with the animals. Waiblinger et al.
(2006) explained that if a stock manager has a positive attitude to cows (thinks they are intel-
ligent, learn easily, like being stroked) then that person is likely to handle animals patiently, to
believe that regular positive contact is important, and to show positive behaviors towards the
cows. Chamove, Crawley-Hartrick and Stafford (2002) have also found that horse handlers
with positive attitudes, coupled with experience, resulted in changes in the horse’s behavior
indicating a “more relaxed, comfortable, confident, interested horse,” when compared to less
experienced handlers or those without such positive perceptions of horses. Further associa-
tions have been found between stock managers’ behavior and their stocks’ fear of humans,
production, and welfare (Hemsworth et al. 1995; Breuer et al. 2000; Hemsworth et al. 2000;
Boivin et al. 2003; Hemsworth et al. 2003).
Broom (2000) believes animals are often fearful of their stock managers and this is the pre-
dominant mode of relationship across UK farms. Rennie et al. (2003) believe that poor quality
stockmanship can result in fearful cattle and that cattle behavior in approach and avoidance
tests are a sensitive indicator of this HAR. Fear not only adversely impacts on production and wel-
fare, but fearful animals can be dangerous to work with. The UK Health and Safety Executive
(2007) reported 40 fatalities in the period 1995–2005 linked to farm livestock, with other injuries
going unreported. They estimate a societal cost of livestock accidents of £27.5 million (2004/5).
Our postal survey is a preliminary study designed to increase our knowledge of the
perceived HAR on UK farms, as reported by those stockpeople who work with commercial
cattle on commercial farms, not on research stations. It complements a concurrent study in-
vestigating the influence of positive human–animal interaction during rearing on the welfare
and subsequent production of commercial dairy heifers (Bertenshaw et al. 2008). These con-
trolled trials have found that positive treatment (brushing) reduces fear, and this is thought to
improve the HAR (Bertenshaw and Rowlinson 2008). Positive treatment also reduced kicking
in the parlor, which was associated with lower yields (Bertenshaw et al. 2008). Analysis of
Anthrozoös

production and management data from the same survey shows that farms categorized
according to increased interaction during rearing, especially the period usually associated with
reduced human contact between six months old and calving (24 months), had a 600 liter
higher milk yield per cow (over a 10-month lactation). Similarly, those respondents who indi-
cated in a free-response question that their heifers received positive treatment from humans
60

during rearing, had a 250 liter higher milk yield per lactation than those who did not cite this
 AZ VOL. 22(1).qxp:Layout 1 1/5/09 4:27 PM Page 61

Bertenshaw and Rowlinson

interaction as a form of human contact during rearing. The current postal survey aimed to so-
licit farmers’ opinions on this subject for a variety of purposes: 1) as an indicator of the HAR
across UK dairy farms, 2) to use opinions to categorize commercial production, reported be-
havior and management practices to explore differences found in scientific trials, 3) to gauge
current knowledge of the causes, and impact, of fearful cows, and 4) to examine whether
stock managers “believed in animal mind” (Knight et al. 2004).

Methods
Participants and Procedure
The postal survey sample was taken from the published National Milk Records (NMR) for England
and Wales, providing addresses and objective production data. Every fourth farm was selected
(dairy herds entered in descending production order by county) and a total of 1000 questionnaires
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 07 September 2015

were distributed. The sample frame is considered sufficiently representative of the dairy industry
for this inductive questionnaire of opinions and reported behavior. Personalized covering letters
outlined the work, the importance of respondents’ participation, appreciation of their assistance,
and advice on completion. It also included a letter from the president of the National Farmers’
Union (NFU) which endorsed the research and encouraged farmers to respond. Free-post
envelopes were provided. A reminder letter was sent out three weeks later.
Design of Questionnaire
The questionnaire was developed around three main issues: attitudes towards cattle,
management of heifers, and perceptions of heifer behavior. It also included questions on
demographics. The questionnaire included questions covering: management practices during
rearing and entering the dairy herd; exploring quality and quantity of HAR; the herd’s response
to the milker; questions to reflect the approach behavior to a human; and incidence of cattle
kicking in the parlor. Further questions were asked regarding stockpersons’ perceptions of
cows’ emotional and cognitive capacity and the stockperson’s motivations for working with
cattle. Questions were constructed using Likert scales (usually 5 points) and open-ended
questions, to stimulate further hypotheses and evidence for discussion. The rationale for many
questions came from studies conducted in controlled conditions (Seabrook 1972a; Davis and
Cheek 1998; Breuer et al. 2000; Hemsworth et al. 2000).
Analysis
All qualitative and quantitative responses were recorded, categorized, coded, and entered into
SPSS (Version 8. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc) for analysis by frequency, correlation analysis
(Kendall’s Tau), and Analysis of Variance to examine differences in means based on the different
sub-scales or categorizations of farms, with post hoc least significant difference (LSD). Where
valid percents are quoted, these are the percentages of respondents who responded to that
question.

Results
Anthrozoös

The response rate was 56%, 560 respondents including those who had recently ceased dairy
farming. This left 516 usable cases with a mean herd size of 144 dairy cattle (including, on
average, 32 heifers) and a mean milk yield of 7799 liters for cows and 6920 liters for heifers
per 10-month lactation. Eighty percent of the respondents were the person who worked with
the animals (a further 18% classified themselves as the owner, who may or may not have
61

worked closely with the animals). Ninety-three percent were male. Age was distributed as
 AZ VOL. 22(1).qxp:Layout 1 1/5/09 4:27 PM Page 62

Exploring Stock Managers’ Perceptions of the Human–Animal Relationship…

follows: younger than 25 years: 2.5%, 25–40 years: 35.5%, 41–55 years: 44.5%, over
55 years: 17.5%. Only 10% had worked with cattle for less than 15 years, while over 50% had
worked with cattle for more than 30 years. When asked why they chose to work with cows,
the responses given were “love of cows” (51%), “born into it” (24%), “interest in cows” (8%),
“income” (6%), and other (11%).
Seventy-two percent of respondents thought that dairy cattle were not fearful of humans,
21% thought they were, and 7% said “some were.” The respondents were asked to report
how cows and heifers would respond to the approach of their regular stockperson and an un-
familiar person. This was to reflect typical measurements taken in “forced approach tests” (see
Waiblinger et al. 2006) used to indicate relative fear of humans. Table 1 contains information
on behaviors measured in “forced approach tests.”
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 07 September 2015

Table 1. Heifers’ and cows’ responses to the direct approach of a known stockperson
and unfamiliar person on commercial farms (valid percent).
Known Person Unfamiliar Person
(e.g., Regular Stockperson) (e.g., Veterinarian)
Response to Approach Heifers Cows Heifers Cows
Overly Friendly 9.7% 11.8% 1.0% 2.8%
Easy to Approach 59.9% 76.3% 39.6% 52.2%
Neither Easy/Nervous 27.1% 11.0% 41.0% 35.2%
Nervous but Approachable 2.8% 0.6% 17.0% 8.9%
Difficult to Approach 0.6% 0.2% 1.4% 1.0%

The responses in Table 1 suggest that respondents’ cows were more confident than heifers
when approached by both familiar and unfamiliar humans. Cows were portrayed as less con-
fident towards an unknown human, and the heifers were also reported as proportionally more
nervous of an unfamiliar person.
Respondents were asked “What may cause a cow to have a good milking tempera-
ment” and “What may be responsible for a poor milking temperament?” The respondents
attributed a cow’s docile temperament to the main factors of: unspecified “previous
experience” (52%), “human contact” (48%), and “genetics” (65%). Reasons for cows being
difficult to milk included: “she was difficult as a heifer” or “the most difficult milker was a
heifer” (5%), “previous negative experiences with humans” (9%), general “previous
experience” (20%), “genetics were responsible for a nervous or poor temperament” (76%),
and “the animal could be unwell or suffering discomfort” (9%). Respondents could give
more than one response.
Respondents were asked about their attention to individual cows and perceptions of their
cows. Most respondents “knew all the cows in the herd” (66%), some knew most (15%), and
some knew none (13%). Not all responded. The majority thought it important to know every
Anthrozoös

individual (93%). On 46% of the farms, cows were called by name. Those that called their
cows by name had a 258 liter higher milk yield than those who did not (7938 liters per lacta-
tion, SEM = 58 versus 7680 liters SEM = 42, p < 0.001). The responses to “Do you believe
cows have feelings?” were “yes” (90%), “no” (5%), “do not know” (1%), “slightly” including
“but not human feelings” (3%). Responses to “Are cows intelligent?” were “yes” (78%), “to a
62

degree” (9%), and “no” (13%).

 AZ VOL. 22(1).qxp:Layout 1 1/5/09 4:27 PM Page 63

Bertenshaw and Rowlinson

Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 show a selection of the elaborated responses to the above questions. They
give an insight into the perceived abilities of cows by those who work with them daily. For example, one
respondent had reason to believe cattle recognize their dams, another attributed jealousy to cows, and
one believed some cows can count and that they learn through social modeling (copying others).

Table 2. Elaborated responses to “Do you believe cows have feelings?” These
responses are a selection of the farmers’ responses, representing the majority of
elaborated responses.
• Emotions—Yes • Happy and unhappy cows
• I’m certain of it • The same as humans
• They like to be touched and talked to • Very easy to see miserable cows
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 07 September 2015

• They feel joy at being turned out and are upset if
separated from the herd
• Cows know if you love or hate them
• They sense anger in your voice
• Sulk and go down in milk if you’ve upset them
• Isolation causes distress and pain is usually obvious herd
• We believe our pet cow is jealous of the dog—
everyone else ignores him, she attacks!
• All have their own personalities
• Emotional when calf weaned
• They must because if you upset a cow they
don’t let their milk down etc.
• Know mother/twin when coming back into the
• They show contentment, alarm, lust, hunger,
thirst, pain, joy
• They hurt and love like anyone else
• Which can be demonstrated with mutual
grooming by a “buddy” cow

Table 3. Elaborated responses to “Do you believe cows are intelligent?” These
responses are a selection of the farmers’ responses, representing the majority of
elaborated responses.
• Cows learn and remember • Can recognize people’s voices, noises,
• One cow can count machinery, and vehicles
• Very intelligent • Not able to rationalize but are sentient beings
• They can learn routines • To a degree
• Yes but sometimes they make you wonder • Occasionally the odd one shows some—but
• They learn quickly they do have memories
• Much cleverer than horses and very laid back • A little—but sometimes it drives you mad
• It is surprising what you can train a cow to do because if they had a little more intelligence,
• Usually very intelligent when doing something life would be a lot easier
wrong
• Can be when it suits them • Higher yielding cows tend to be more intelligent
• They certainly think, like routine, are interested • They behave instinctively and as herd animals
in change. • Some of them/ some more so than others
• Turn off the electric fence for a couple of hours… • Seen through a family
Anthrozoös

• They will exploit situations to their own benefit • Within reason/reasonably

• They always know where that open gate is and • In a herd sense—pick up what the others are
where the feed is kept/Opening gates, helping doing remarkably quickly
themselves to food • No but crafty
• Built in clock—know when it is milking time/ • More than sheep
63

Can tell the time of day • Slightly

 AZ VOL. 22(1).qxp:Layout 1 1/5/09 4:27 PM Page 64

Exploring Stock Managers’ Perceptions of the Human–Animal Relationship…

Table 4. Elaorated responses to “What could be responsible for the behavior of your
most docile milker?” These responses are a selection of the farmers’ responses,
representing the majority of elaborated responses.
• Daily treatment and contact as big a part as • I think the more you handle them then the more
genetics/experience confidence they have in you
• 90% docile if you talk to them and stroke them • Special treatment as a calf—only red and white calf
• Not afraid—enjoys being stroked • Young stock being less shy get made a fuss of,
• Human care and contact rubbed, stroked, talked to and this carries on
• They seem to be the cheeky* ones who enjoy through to the herd
being petted • Young stock more docile when reared by a
woman
• Often friendly cow is the first of the season • Sometimes if has been ill as a calf and received
because has had more attention more human contact
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 07 September 2015

• Halter trained as calves/show calves /children’s
show calf
• If a calf is very flighty when born then I would
mard that calf (stroke and play) until it becomes
confident and cheeky, overcoming its fear of
people
• Although very friendly she can be very dangerous
when bulling as she has no fear
*an endearing term for slightly naughty or impertinent
• She was treated like a person by a lady
• I believe they are what you make them
• Being brought up quietly and firmly as you would
a child
• Always treated with kindness/quiet handling
• Very often a bad cow’s calf gets a lot of attention
and becomes mard (soft)
• Individual feeding as calves/bucket reared

Table 5. Elaborated responses to “What could be responsible for the behavior of your
most difficult milker?” These responses are a selection of the farmers’ responses,
representing the majority of elaborated responses.
• Heifers are more difficult to work with • Busy milking didn’t get enough attention when
• Difficult calving—stressful early milkings first milked always kicking unit off etc
• A group of lively heifers • Scared or upset during routine treatments
• Upset as a heifer • Could have been ill treated by humans
• Unsure of surroundings or equipment/not used • Some cows are sensitive and ticklish and resent
to milking system touching
• If knocked about in the first few days • Cows have a preference for different people,
one
• Bad experiences tend to induce short-term cow that can be a problem to the wife isn’t to
reactions the farmer and vice versa
• Frightened • Teat placement—cluster slip as heifer—
very nervous

When asked “Which are the most important qualities that make a good stockperson,” the re-
sponses were “temperament” (69%), “knowledge of dairy cattle” (57%), “interest in dairy cattle”
(51%), “conscientiousness” (including commitment to working long and antisocial hours) (49%),
Anthrozoös

“love of cows” (44%), and “it is something one is born with which cannot be taught” (11%).
In answer to the question “What are the most important influences on cow welfare?” the
responses (more than one answer could be given) were: “the person” (53%), “time allocated
to animals” (13%), “reducing stress from other cows and humans” (12%), “the physical
environment” (78%), “nutrition” (54%), “health” (27%), “income” (10%), “genetics” (4%),
64

“knowledge” (1%), “legislation” (1%), and “safety” (1%).

 AZ VOL. 22(1).qxp:Layout 1 1/5/09 4:27 PM Page 65

Bertenshaw and Rowlinson

Farms were categorized based on their responses and the data were analyzed for
differences in means and associations. Analysis found that where stock managers thought it
important to know every animal in the herd, their heifers had 197 liter higher average milk yield
over their first lactation (“important”: 6931 liters, SEM = 35, n = 472, “not important”:
6734 liters, SEM = 105, n = 34, p = 0.14). No difference was found between those herds
where the farmer reported to actually know differing proportions of the herd. Knowing a greater
proportion of the herd, though, was associated with allowing greater approach of the regular
stockperson (T = 0.145, p < 0.001, n = 503). Also, believing it important to know every indi-
vidual was associated with heifers being easier to approach (T = 0.112, p < 0.001). Where cattle
were more likely to be called by name, they were also easier to approach (T = 0.207, p < 0.001).
No difference was found in mean milk yield when farms were grouped on whether the respondents
thought cows were fearful of humans, had feelings, or were intelligent.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 07 September 2015

Discussion
Our data suggests that UK dairy farmers largely regard their cows as intelligent beings, capable
of experiencing a range of emotions. Placing importance on knowing the individual animal and
calling them by name was associated with higher milk yields.
Fraser and Broom (1997) define the predominant relationship between farm animals and
their stock managers as fear. Seventy-two percent of our commercial respondents thought that
cows were not fearful of humans, although their reports of response to an approaching human
suggest some level of fear, particularly for the heifers. With both cows and heifers this would
appear to be greater in response to an unfamiliar human. Respondents also acknowledged
that negative experiences of humans can result in poor behavior in the parlor. Hemsworth et
al. (1995) found that 30–50% of the variation in farm milk yield could be explained by the cow’s
fear of the stockperson, therefore recognizing fear, and minimizing it, is important for animal
welfare, safety, and production.
The reported causes of “docile” and “difficult” milkers demonstrate that stock managers
accept that cattle have the ability to learn and that aversive experiences with humans may
result in fear of humans and fearful behavior. Ewbank (1999) believes that the husbandry
system under which animals are reared is more significant than genetics, and the most
important factor influencing handling is the extent and severity of their previous experiences
with humans. Commercial opinion would appear to differ, placing greater emphasis on
genetics. Where the heifers were cited as the most difficult cows to milk, it should be noted
that most have experienced minimal or aversive human contact prior to the intense human
contact and novel milking routine (Bertenshaw 2002). This would suggest that their “difficult”
behavior may be attributable to fear of humans based on their previous experiences during
rearing. Respondents acknowledged that negative experiences of humans can result in poor
behavior in the parlor.
Considering cattle as individual characters is suggested to reflect empathy with cattle
(Manteca and Deag 1993). Higher milk yields were associated with farms on which the re-
Anthrozoös

spondent a) thought it important to know every animal in the herd and b) called their cows by
name. It is hypothesized that these positive attitudes are reflected in human behavior towards
the animals and result in a good HAR. This has been reported by Breuer et al. (2000), who
found that positive responses to the question “Do you pat and stroke cows?” were positively
correlated with yield and protein yield, and negatively associated with negative interactions.
65

Seabrook (1972 a, b) found that high-yielding stock managers talk to their stock more than
 AZ VOL. 22(1).qxp:Layout 1 1/5/09 4:27 PM Page 66

Exploring Stock Managers’ Perceptions of the Human–Animal Relationship…

low-yielding stockpersons. It has also been suggested that calling a cow by name removes
the self-consciousness of talking to her (English et al. 1992). With a similar rationale, it was
hypothesized that respondents with favorable attitudes towards cows (believing them to be
intelligent and sentient) may have been associated with higher milk yields, due to an improved
human–animal relationship. However, we found no evidence to support this.
The respondents to this survey suggest that animals have feelings. Duncan and Petherick
(1989) postulated that if an animal can experience one human-like emotion (citing fear), they
can surely experience others. The respondents’ opinions support this contention. Subjective
interpretation of animals’ feelings is increasingly being used in applied ethology (Wemelsfelder
2001, 2008). Baars (2000) believes that subjective experience is equally plausible in all species
with human-like brains and behavior. He concludes we must either deny this experience to
other humans or we must attribute it to other species. The elaborated responses from our
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 07 September 2015

study are useful in depicting the types of emotions experienced by cows. Rollin (2005) is in
favor of anecdotes contributing a source of information to the field of animal consciousness
and argues it is not anthropomorphism. Panksepp (2005) is turning the tide on scientists
guarding against anthropomorphism. The elaborated responses reported in our postal survey
contribute some examples of the capacities of cattle, and this contextual human insight may
be useful for developing hypotheses for further study.
Most respondents (78%) thought that cows were intelligent; however, a study by Davis and
Cheek (1998) found cattle were rated fairly low in intelligence. They suggested that the ratings
reflected the respondents’ familiarity with the animals. The stock managers in our survey were
very familiar with their cattle and had a great understanding of the species’ capabilities, through
working with them daily. Stockpersons’ opinions offer valuable insight into this subject, which
could enable more accurate intelligence tests to be devised; for example, to test whether cows
can count in order to stand at the feed hopper that delivers the most feed. Further investiga-
tions to qualify the feats of intelligence reported and to ask respondents to rank cows against
other animals would be more informative than relying on purely anecdotal reports.
Hemsworth and Gonyou (1997) doubt the reliability of an inexperienced stockperson’s at-
titudes towards farm animals. Our survey found an experienced workforce (89.5% > 15 years).
We believe it would be appropriate to credit them with the ability to pass reasonable judgment
on their animals’ behavior and speculate on the motivational states behind it, although it is ac-
cepted that a survey may not be the most reliable method for conveying this, and stockper-
son’s interpretations may not be accurate. Anthony (2003) suggests that more education is
required for stock managers about their stocks’ needs. To investigate this claim, the work of
Whaytt et al. (2003), who compared veterinarian and animal behaviorist expert opinion, could
be repeated using dairy farmers to assess welfare, and compare this with the opinions of the
trained objective experts.
Bekoff (1994) reports that the treatment of individuals is related to our perception of that
individual’s ability to think. The attitudinal data showing stock managers’ opinions of cows’
cognition and emotions bodes well for cattle cared for on UK dairy farms. The respondents’
Anthrozoös

reasons for choosing to work with cows also create a positive attitude profile for UK farmers
(44% citing “love of cows” as a reason to work with cows). Anthony (2003) reiterates that sci-
entific study suggests that improved HAR may translate to better care and consideration for
farmed animals, promoting both better animal welfare and on-farm productivity. The findings
of this preliminary survey reflect other published trials and smaller scale in-depth farm studies.
66

These encouraging findings require further substantiation.

 AZ VOL. 22(1).qxp:Layout 1 1/5/09 4:27 PM Page 67

Bertenshaw and Rowlinson

This survey highlights the influential role stockpeople believe humans can play in shaping
an animal’s temperament. The survey also inadvertently supports Fraser and Broom’s (1997)
belief that there is some level of fear of humans across our commercial herds. Both demon-
strate commercial opinion reflecting scientific findings. This is useful congruence, as often
guidelines/legislation for improvements in animal welfare are shunned by those working with
the animals because they believe them to be unnecessary and addressing a non-existent
problem.
The majority of stock managers do not acknowledge that cattle are fearful of humans. It
does not appear to be perceived as a great problem against other factors influencing pro-
duction or welfare, but by implementing practices that reduce fear, marginal profit can be
gained. Increasing awareness of the basal level of fear across the nation’s dairy herds could
help raise the profile of the problem, which can then be addressed. Attitudes that are positive
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 07 September 2015

and place importance on individual animals should be fostered in staff.

Unigate Dairy (a milk purchaser) state in their contract of 1997 that “cattle must be treated
in a friendly manner and handled quietly to minimize their fear of human contact and…the
stockperson must have a caring attitude towards animals in their charge.” The Unigate con-
tract was the first such detailed audit. It acknowledges fear of humans and the need to mini-
mize it. It also reflects consumer expectation of compassionate farmers. The contract reflects
that it may not be enough to minimize suffering but rather consumers expect there to be a pos-
itive relationship between farmers and their cows. This expectation of the public and the poor
image that the public have held of farmers in recent years (Farmers Weekly, January 10, 2001)
led to concerns that imposed Animal Welfare Assessment Schemes could be used negatively
(Vaarst 2003). The attitudinal information from our survey shows that farmers hold cows in
very high regard. These results create a positive profile of the caring and respectful attitudes
of UK farmers to their stock, and this image should be promoted to the public.
A 56% response rate suggests the respondents are a good representation of UK stock
managers. Further on-farm interviews, observations, and animal-centered tests are needed to
confirm the inferences made from the data collected in this postal survey.

Conclusions
Attitudinal data present a positive profile of the UK dairy stock managers, which theoretically
predisposes them to a good HAR and the associated benefits, as outlined in other published
studies. This study found placing importance on the individual, including calling a cow by her
name, was associated with higher milk yields. This input, at no cost, may help tilt the HAR more
favorably to improve welfare, behavior, management, and production.

References
Anthony, R. 2003. The ethical implications of the human–animal bond on the farm. Animal Welfare 12: 505–512.
Baars, B. J. 2000. There are no known differences in brain mechanisms of consciousness between humans and
other mammals. Animal Welfare 10(S): S31–40.
Anthrozoös

Bekoff, M. 1994. Cognitive ethology and the treatment of non-human animals: how matters of mind inform
matters of welfare. Animal Welfare 3: 75–96.
Bertenshaw, C. E. 2002. The influence of positive human–animal interaction during rearing on the welfare and
subsequent production of the dairy heifer. PhD thesis, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
Bertenshaw, C. E. and Rowlinson, P. R. 2001. The influence of positive interaction during rearing on the welfare
and subsequent production of the dairy heifer. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science
Conference, York, UK, April 9–11, 2001.
67
 AZ VOL. 22(1).qxp:Layout 1 1/5/09 4:27 PM Page 68

Exploring Stock Managers’ Perceptions of the Human–Animal Relationship…

Bertenshaw, C. E. and Rowlinson, P. R. 2008. Exploring heifers’ perception of ‘positive’ treatment through their
motivation to pursue a retreated human. Animal Welfare17: 313–319.
Bertenshaw, C. E., Rowlinson, P. R., Edge, H. L., Douglas, S. and Shiel, R. 2008. The effect of different degrees
of ‘positive’ human–animal interaction during rearing on welfare and subsequent production of commercial
dairy heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114(1–2): 65–75.
Boissy, A. and Bouissou, M. F. 1988. Effects of early handling on heifers subsequent reactivity to unfamiliar
situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 259–273.
Boivin, X., Lensink, J., Tallet, C. and Veissier, I. 2003. Stockmanship and farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare
12: 479–492.
Breuer, K., Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L., Matthews, L. R. and Coleman, G. J. 2000. Behavioral response to
humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 273–288.
Broom, D. M. 2000. Welfare assessments and welfare problem areas during handling and transport. In Livestock
Handling and Transport, 36–38, ed. T. Grandin. Oxford: CAB International.
Chamove, A. S., Crawley-Hartrick, O. J. E. and Stafford, K. J. 2002. Horse reactions to human attitudes and
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 07 September 2015

behaviour. Anthrozoös 15: 323–331.

Davis, S. L. and Cheek, P. R., 1998. Do domestic animals have minds and the ability to think? A provisional
sample of opinions on the question. Journal of Animal Science 76: 2072–2079.
Duncan, I. J. H. and Petherick, J. C. 1989. Cognition: the implications for animal welfare. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 24: 81.
English, P., Burgess, G., Segundo, R. and Dunne, J. 1992. Stockmanship—Improving the Care of the Pig and
Other Livestock. Ipswich: Farming Press Books.
Ewbank, R. 1999. Animal welfare. In UFAW, Management and Welfare of Farm Animals. 4th edn, 1–12, London:
Bailliere.
Fraser, A. F. and Broom, D. M. 1997. Farm Animal Behavior and Welfare. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L., Beveridge, L. and Matthews, L. R. 1995. The welfare of extensively managed
dairy cattle: A review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 161–182.
Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L., Coleman, G. J. and Hansen, C. 1989. A study of the relationship between the
attitudinal and behavioural profiles of stockpersons and the level of fear of humans and reproductive
performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 301–314.
Hemsworth, P. H., Coleman, G. J., Barnett, J. L. and Borg, S. 2000. Relationships between human–animal
interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 78: 2821–2831.
Hemsworth, P. H., Coleman, G. J., Barnett, J. L., Borg, S. and Dowling, S. 2003. The effects of cognitive
behavioural intervention on the attitude and behaviour of stockpersons and the behaviour and productivity
of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80:1 68–78.
Hemsworth, P. H. and Gonyou, H. W. 1997. Human contact. In Animal Welfare, 205–305, ed. M. C. Appleby
and B. O. Hughes. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
HSE. 2007. <www.hse.gov.uk/agriculture/pdf/cattlehandling.pdf> Accessed on July 8, 2007.
Knight, S., Vrij, A., Cherryman, J. and Nunkoosing, K. 2004. Attitudes towards animal use and belief in animal
mind. Anthrozoös 17: 43–62.
Lensink, B. J., Fernandez, X., Boivin, X., Pradel, P., Le Neindre, P. and Veissier, I. 2000. The impact of gentle
contacts on ease of handling, welfare, and growth of calves, and quality of veal meat. Journal of Animal
Science 78: 1219–1226.
Manteca, X. and Deag, J. M. 1993. Individual differences in temperament of domestic animals: a review of
methodology. Animal Welfare 2: 247–268.
Panksepp, J. 2005. Affective-social neuroscience approaches to understanding core emotional feelings in an-
imals. In Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals, 57–77, ed. F. D. McMillan. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rennie, L. J., Bowel, V. A., Dearing, J. M., Haskell, M. J. and Lawrence, A. B. 2003. A study of three methods
used to assess stockmanship on commercial dairy farms: can these become effective welfare assessment
Anthrozoös

techniques? Animal Welfare 12: 591–597.

Rollin, B. E. 2005. On understanding animal mentation. In Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals, 3–14, ed.
F. D. McMillan. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rushen, J., de Passille, A. M. B., Munksgaard, L. and Tanida, H. 2001. People as social factors in the world of
farm animals. In Social Behaviour in Farm Animals, 353–372, ed. L. J. Keeling and H. W. Gonyou. Oxford:
CAB International.
68
 AZ VOL. 22(1).qxp:Layout 1 1/5/09 4:27 PM Page 69

Bertenshaw and Rowlinson

Rushen, J., Taylor, A. A. and de Passille, A. M. 1999. Domestic animals’ fear of humans and its affect on their
welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 285–303.
Seabrook, M. F. 1972a. A study to determine the influence of the herdsman’s personality on milk yield. Journal
of Agricultural Labour Science 1: 1–45.
Seabrook, M. F. 1972b. A study of the influence of the cowman’s personality and job satisfaction on milk yields
of dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Labour Science 2: 49–93.
Vaarst, M. 2003. Evaluating a concept for an animal welfare assessment system providing decision support
using qualitative interviews. Animal Welfare 12: 541–546.
Waiblinger, S., Boivin, X., Pedersen, V., Tosi, M., Janczak, A., Visser, E. and Jones, R. 2006. Assessing the human–
animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 185–242.
Waiblinger, S., Menke, C., Korff, J. and Bucher, A. 2004. Previous handling and gentle interactions affect behavior
and heart rate of dairy cows during a veterinary procedure. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85: 31–42.
Wemelsfelder, F. 2001. The inside and outside aspects of consciousness: complementary approaches to the
study of animal emotion. Animal Welfare 10(S): S129–140.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 07 September 2015

Wemelsfelder, F. 2008. Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA): a novel method for assessing animal
experience. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science Conference, Scarborough, UK, March 31
to April 2, 2008.
Whaytt, H. R., Main, D. C. J., Greent, L. E. and Webster, A. J. F. 2003. Animal-based measures for the
assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare
12: 205–217.

Anthrozoös
69