CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Association between Attitude and Empathy with the Quality of Human-Livestock Interactions

Leon, Andres Felipe, Sanchez, Jorge Alberto, Romero, Marlyn H.·2020·Animals
DOI 10.3390/ani10081304PMC PMC7459475
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The human-animal interactions are a key component of human and animal welfare. The quality of this interaction can therefore be assessed by measuring the reaction response of the animals to the handler’s behavior. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between attitude and empathy towards the animals with the quality of human-livestock interactions. Additionally, we aimed to investigate whether the quality of cattle handling deteriorates as the working day progresses. A total of 18 livestock handlers and 1514 Colombian commercial Zebu steers were evaluated. A questionnaire pack consisting of 50 questions regarding demographic information, attitude and empathy characteristics was applied, using a structured interview. Each handlers’ responses to positive and negative attitude and empathy questions were calculated to produce a composite score. Observations of human-animal interactions were made at three times during the day (5:00, 7:00 and 9:00), each observation lasting 30 min. The handlers had an average age of 39.4 ± 3.4 y (range = 18–66 y), with little schooling but a lot of experience in the trade (17.13 ± 14.21 y). During handling, hitting, prodding and hand raising predominated over other actions (p < 0.05), and in response, the cattle behaved by freezing and running. Significant differences were found in the interactions used by handlers depending on the time of day (p < 0.05). The empathy total score ranged from 20 to 100, and the attitude total score between 24 and 120. The average attitude and empathy scores for handlers were 85.05 ± 6.92 (mean ±SD; range, 73–97) and 74.61 ± 4.72 (mean ±SD; range, 65–83), respectively. It has been concluded that there is an association between handlers’ attitudes and empathy towards animals and the quality of human-animal interaction during pre-slaughter.

Overview

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 · 10.3390/ani10081304

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Schematic representation of observed sections of the driving areas from the corridors to the reception area (light grey and white), and from the reception area to the weighing area (dark grey).
Figure 1 Schematic representation of observed sections of the driving areas from the corridors to the reception area (light grey and white), and from the reception area to the weighing area (dark grey).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Grandin, T. (2015). The effect of economic factors on the welfare of livestock and poultry. Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach, CABI International. · DOI
  2. Hemsworth, P., and Coleman, G. (2011). Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals, CAB International. [2nd ed.]. · DOI
  3. Coleman, 2000, Modifying stockperson attitudes and behaviour towards pigs at a large commercial farm, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 66, 11, 10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00073-8 · DOI
  4. Pinillos, 2016, One Welfare—A platform for improving human and animal welfare, Vet. Rec., 179, 412, 10.1136/vr.i5470 · DOI
  5. 2020, Stockpeople and Animal Welfare: Compatibilities, Contradictions, and Unresolved Ethical Dilemmas, J. Agric. Environ. Ethics, 33, 71, 10.1007/s10806-019-09813-z · DOI
  6. Colombo, 2017, Empathy toward animals and people: The role of gender and length of service in a sample of Italian veterinarians, J. Vet. Behav., 17, 32, 10.1016/j.jveb.2016.10.010 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Ceballos, 2018, Impact of good practices of handling training on beef cattle welfare and stockpeople attitudes and behaviors, Livest Sci., 216, 24, 10.1016/j.livsci.2018.06.019 · DOI
  8. 2018, Physiological responses in horses, donkeys and mules sold at livestock markets, Int. J. Vet. Sci. Med., 6, 97, 10.1016/j.ijvsm.2018.03.002 · DOI
  9. Stojkov, 2020, Fitness for transport of cull dairy cows at livestock markets, J. Dairy Sci., 103, 2650, 10.3168/jds.2019-17454 · DOI
  10. Destrez, 2018, What stockperson behavior during weighing reveals about the relationship between humans and suckling beef cattle: A preliminary study, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 209, 8, 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.10.001 · DOI
  11. Romero, 2017, Conventional versus modern abattoirs in Colombia: Impacts on welfare indicators and risk factors for high muscle pH in commercial Zebu young bulls, Meat Sci., 123, 173, 10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.10.003 · DOI
  12. Boivin, 2007, Attitudes of farmers towards Limousin cattle and their handling, Anim. Welf., 16, 147, 10.1017/S0962728600031201 · DOI
  13. Hanna, 2009, The relationship between the stockperson’s personality and attitudes and the productivity of dairy cows, Animal, 3, 737, 10.1017/S1751731109003991 · DOI
  14. Norring, 2014, Empathic veterinarians score cattle pain higher, Vet. J., 200, 186, 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.02.005 · DOI
  15. Grandin, T. (2007). Behavioural principles of handling cattle and other grazing animals under extensive conditions. Livestock Handling and Transport, CABI International. · DOI
  16. Breuer, 2000, Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 66, 273, 10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00097-0 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Lindahl, 2016, Human-animal interactions and safety during dairy cattle handling—Comparing moving cows to milking and hoof trimming, J. Dairy Sci., 99, 2131, 10.3168/jds.2014-9210 · DOI
  18. Hemsworth, 2003, Human–animal interactions in livestock production, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 81, 185, 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00280-0 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Waiblinger, 2006, Assessing the human–animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 101, 185, 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Strappini, 2013, Bruises in culled cows: When, where and how are they inflicted?, Animal, 7, 485, 10.1017/S1751731112001863 · DOI
  21. Grandin, T. (2020, February 02). Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines & Audit Guide (2005 Edition With 2007 and 2010 Updates). Available online: http://animalhandling.org/sites/default/files/forms/animal-handling-guidelines-.
  22. Hemsworth, 2011, Human–animal interactions at abattoirs: Relationships between handling and animal stress in sheep and cattle, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 135, 24, 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.09.007 · DOI
  23. Romero, 2017, Interacción Humano-Animal y Prácticas de Manejo Bovino en Subastas Colombianas, Revista de Investigaciones Veterinarias del Perú, 28, 571, 10.15381/rivep.v28i3.13360 · DOI
  24. Alam, 2010, Skin injuries identified in cattle and water buffaloes at livestock markets in Bangladesh, Vet. Rec., 167, 415, 10.1136/vr.c3301 · DOI
  25. Mota-Rojas, D., Velarde, A., Huertas, S.M., and Cajiao, M. (2016). Bienestar animal en mercados ganaderos. BIENESTAR ANIMAL, una visión global en Iberoamérica, Elsevier.
  26. Pajor, 2000, Aversion learning techniques to evaluate dairy cattle handling practices, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 69, 89, 10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00119-2 · DOI
  27. Waiblinger, 2002, The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 79, 195, 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00155-7 · DOI
  28. Grandin, T. (2007). Causes of poor welfare and welfare assessment during handling and transport. Livestock Handling and Transport, CABI International. · DOI
  29. Breuer, 2003, The effect of positive or negative handling on the behavioural and physiological responses of nonlactating heifers, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 84, 3, 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00146-1 · DOI
  30. Barth, 2018, The influence of gentle interactions with an experimenter during milking on dairy cows’ avoidance distance and milk yield, flow and composition, Animal, 12, 340, 10.1017/S1751731117001495 · DOI
  31. Sorge, 2014, Perception of the importance of human-animal interactions on cattle flow and worker safety on Minnesota dairy farms, J. Dairy Sci., 97, 4632, 10.3168/jds.2014-7971 · DOI
  32. Fukasawa, 2017, Relationship between the stockperson’s attitudes and dairy productivity in Japan, Anim. Sci. J., 88, 394, 10.1111/asj.12652 · DOI
  33. Pulido, 2018, Hauliers’ perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare could influence the operational and logistics practices in sheep transport, J. Vet. Behav., 23, 25, 10.1016/j.jveb.2017.10.004 · DOI
  34. Adler, 2019, Invited review: Examining farmers’ personalities and attitudes as possible risk factors for dairy cattle health, welfare, productivity, and farm management: A systematic scoping review, J. Dairy Sci., 102, 3805, 10.3168/jds.2018-15037 · DOI
  35. Signal, 2007, Attitude to Animals and Empathy: Comparing Animal Protection and General Community Samples, Anthrozoos, 20, 125, 10.2752/175303707X207918 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 32

Metadata

Authors
Leon, A. F., Sanchez, J. A., & Romero, M. H.
Affiliations
  • Faculty of Agrarian and Animal Sciences, University of Caldas, Manizales 170004, Colombia
  • Department of Animal Health, Faculty of Agrarian and Animal Sciences, University of Caldas, Manizales 170004, Colombia
ORCID
Venue
Animals
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-07-30
Volume
10
Issue
8
Pages
1304
ISSN
2076-2615
DOI
10.3390/ani10081304
PMC
PMC7459475
Cited by
32
References
1
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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