CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 89Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesGeographies of human-animal interactions

Keeper-Animal Interactions: Differences between the Behaviour of Zoo Animals Affect Stockmanship

Open access
Ward, Samantha J., Melfi, Vicky·2015·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0140237PMC PMC4624973
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Stockmanship is a term used to describe the management of animals with a good stockperson someone who does this in a in a safe, effective, and low-stress manner for both the stock-keeper and animals involved. Although impacts of unfamiliar zoo visitors on animal behaviour have been extensively studied, the impact of stockmanship i.e familiar zoo keepers is a new area of research; which could reveal significant ramifications for zoo animal behaviour and welfare. It is likely that different relationships are formed dependant on the unique keeper-animal dyad (human-animal interaction, HAI). The aims of this study were to (1) investigate if unique keeper-animal dyads were formed in zoos, (2) determine whether keepers differed in their interactions towards animals regarding their attitude, animal knowledge and experience and (3) explore what factors affect keeper-animal dyads and ultimately influence animal behaviour and welfare. Eight black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis), eleven Chapman's zebra (Equus burchellii), and twelve Sulawesi crested black macaques (Macaca nigra) were studied in 6 zoos across the UK and USA. Subtle cues and commands directed by keepers towards animals were identified. The animals latency to respond and the respective behavioural response (cue-response) was recorded per keeper-animal dyad (n = 93). A questionnaire was constructed following a five-point Likert Scale design to record keeper demographic information and assess the job satisfaction of keepers, their attitude towards the animals and their perceived relationship with them. There was a significant difference in the animals' latency to appropriately respond after cues and commands from different keepers, indicating unique keeper-animal dyads were formed. Stockmanship style was also different between keepers; two main components contributed equally towards this: "attitude towards the animals" and "knowledge and experience of the animals". In this novel study, data demonstrated unique dyads were formed between keepers and zoo animals, which influenced animal behaviour.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0140237

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research on keeper-animal interactions in zoos has received very little attention, with only a few studies attempting to evaluate this relationship.

    “In comparison to the research that has been conducted in the domestic animal industries, research on keeper–animal interactions in zoos has received very little attention [34], with only a few studies attempting to evaluate this relationship [35,36,37,38,39,40].”

    From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [38]

  • Differences were found in the latency of black rhinoceros and Chapman's zebras to appropriately respond to behavioural cues for different keepers, concluding that unique dyads were formed between keepers and these animals.

    “Ward and Melfi [38] found differences in the latency of black rhinoceros and Chapman’s zebras to appropriately respond to behavioural cues for different keepers, concluding that unique dyads were formed between keepers and these animals.”

    From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [38]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. [1]Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ. Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals, Second Edition CAB International: Wallingford, UK 2011.
  2. [2]Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ. The integration of human-animal relations into animal welfare monitoring Schemes. Animal Welfare. 2009; 18: 335– 345.
  3. [3]Boivin X, Lensink J, Tallet C, Veissier I. Stockmanship and farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare. 2003; 12: 479– 492.
  4. [4]Hemsworth PH. Human-animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2003; 81: 185– 198.
  5. [5]Waiblinger S, Menke C, Coleman G. The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2002; 79: 195– 219.
  6. [6]Gonyou HW, Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL. Effects of frequent interactions with humans on growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 1986; 16: 269– 278.
  7. [7]Hemsworth PH, Verge J, Coleman GJ. Conditioned approach avoidance responses to humans: the ability of pigs to associate feeding and aversive social experiences in the presence of humans with humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 1996; 50: 71– 82.
  8. [8]Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Coleman GJ, Hansen C. A study of the relationships 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. 1989; 23: 301– 314.
  9. [9]Pedersen LJ, Damm BI, Kongsted AG. The influence of adverse or gentle handling procedures on sexual behaviour in fearful and confident sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2003; 83: 277– 290.
  10. [10]Ellingsen K, Coleman GJ, Lund V, Mejdell CM. Using qualitative behaviour assessment to explore the link between stockperson behaviour and dairy calf behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2014; 153: 10– 17.
  11. [11]Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ, Barnett JL, Borg S, Relationships between human–animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science. 2000; 78: 2821– 2831. 11063304
  12. [12]Lensink BJ, Veissier I, Florand L. The farmer’s influence on calves’ behaviour, health and production of a veal unit. Animal Science. 2001; 72: 105– 116. 11263824
  13. [13]Gross WB, Siegel PB. Effects of early environmental stresses on chicken body weight, antibody response to RBC antigens, feed efficiency and response to fasting. Avian Diseases. 1980; 24: 549– 579. 7447831
  14. [14]Baker KC. Benefits of positive human interaction for socially housed chimpanzees. Animal Welfare. 2004; 13 (3): 239– 245. 20505791 PMC2875797
  15. [15]Manciocco A, Chaiarotti A, Vitale A, Effects of positive interaction with caretakers on the behaviour of socially housed common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2009; 120: 100– 107.
  16. [17]Ward SJ, Melfi V. The implications of husbandry training on zoo animal response rates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2013; 147: 179– 185.
  17. [20]Davey G. Visitors’ Effects on the Welfare of Animals in the Zoo: A Review. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2007; 10(2): 169– 183. 17559323
  18. [21]Hosey G. Hediger Revisited: How Do Zoo Animals See Us? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2013; 16: 338– 359. 10.1080/10888705.2013.827916 24079488 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [22]Eagly A, Chaiken S. The Advantages of an Inclusive Definition of Attitude. Social Cognition. 2007; 25 (5): 582– 602.
  20. [23]Phillips C, Peck D. The effects of personality of keepers and tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) on their behaviour in an interactive zoo exhibit. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2007; 106: 244– 258.
  21. [24]Carlstead K. A Comparative Approach to the Study of Keeper–Animal Relationships in the Zoo. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28: 589– 608. 10.1002/zoo.20289 19885915 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [25]Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research. PLoS Biol. 2010; 8(6): e1000412 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412 20613859 PMC2893951 · DOI · Paper page
  23. [28]Field A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 4nd Edition Sage Publications, London, UK 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ward, S. J., & Melfi, V.
Corresponding author
Ward, Samantha J.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2015-10-28
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
e0140237
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0140237
PMC
PMC4624973
OpenAlex
W1849586717
Cited by
89
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Geographies of human-animal interactions
Keywords
stockmanship, human-animal interaction, zoo animal behavior, animal welfare, black rhinoceros, zookeepers
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Husbandry, Animal Welfare, Animals, Zoo, Behavior, Animal, Human-Animal Bond, Female, Humans, Male

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review