Page 300 - The Welfare of Cattle

herdsManshIP and huMan InteraCtIon 277

to select to describe stockperson behavior. They were as follows: quick, dominating, aggressive,
fearful, patient, careful, calm, determined, focused, insecure, careless, talks to the animals, cuddles
the animals, inventive, nervous, boisterous, and including. The observers completed a visual assess-
ment scale for each of the 17 variables to create numerical scores based on the location of the mark
they drew on the scale. This is one method of converting subjective descriptions to more objective
terms. In the same study, the researchers also had observers assess the behavior of the calves during
stockperson interaction. Thirty-one descriptors were included in the list to describe the behavior
of the calves during interaction with the stockperson. They were as follows: nervous, frustrated,
fearful, enjoying, distressed, uncomfortable, friendly, content, sociable, uneasy, calm, confident,
agitated, unwell, happy, scared, positively occupied, relaxed, boisterous, inquisitive, playful, tense,
aggressive, bored, depressed, active, lively, irritable, vigilant, apathetic, and indifferent. After
observing the interaction of a stockperson and calf, the observer employed the same assessment
method described above to create numerical values describing each of the 31 characteristics. This
approach is inherently subjective as each individual observer will vary to some extent regarding
specific level of any single descriptor they observe. However, the introduction of a means of con-
verting a discrete outcome—was the descriptor observed versus not?—to a continuous outcome—
what level of each descriptor was observed?—facilitates the calculation of statistics that can better
describe the differences between observers.
An additional challenge that requires attention as methods of testing human-animal interac-
tion are developed and implemented is controlling for the ability of animals to recognize handlers
and respond to handlers in different ways (de Passillé and Rushen, 2005). It is likely that common
methods of quantifying animal responses to human interaction will emerge as the field of animal
welfare science continues to mature. As these common methods arise, the following factors must
be considered: (1) How well are the assessment methods applied in field versus laboratory settings?,
(2) Do the assessment methods accurately capture and quantify animal behavior when applied over
time?, (3) What are acceptable levels of repeatability and reliability for tests of human-animal inter-
action?, and (4) What is an appropriate threshold between acceptable and unacceptable test results?.
It is important to note that behavioral assessments may not be the only set of measures that
are necessary to fully understand the quality of stockmanship (de Passillé and Rushen, 2005). The
early debate over the relative importance behavioral versus physiological assessments of animal wel-
fare states was discussed in detail by Duncan (1997). He described two primary schools of thought
regarding animal welfare assessment, namely, Biological Function and Feelings. He described the
Biological Function school of thought as an approach that was focused on assessing the operative and
physiological states of the body as the primary means of understanding welfare states. The Feelings
school of thought was focused on understanding the affective state of the animal. This approach did
not consider the physiological state of the animal, but relied heavily on interpreting behavioral dis-
plays instead. A reasonable argument can be made that a well-informed assessment of animal welfare
should include a blend of both schools of thought. Such an approach aligns with a point made by de
Passillé and Rushen (2005); that a full understanding of the implications of good or poor stockman-
ship should weigh the behaviors an animal displays, but also consider other outcomes such as physi-
ological responses, animal productivity, and final product quality attributes if possible.

IMPOrtaNCe OF MaNaGeMeNt

Prevention of abusive Behavior

Abusive behavior is difficult to detect in animal welfare assessments for multiple reasons. First,
people tend to display their best behavior when the feel that they are being monitored. In addition, a
formal animal welfare assessment captures a limited view of the state of animal welfare at a farm.