Comparison of methods to assess fear of humans in commercial breeding gilts and sows

Powell, Candice; Hemsworth, Lauren M.; Rice, Maxine; Hemsworth, P.H.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2016.05.027

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To accomplish these goals, the validity of the metrics used would need to be investigated in various ways. For example, comparing the results of this tool to validated tools as has been done with other species (Powell et al 2016), or to physiologic measures such as cortisol levels would be helpful in confirming that the response to approach by a stranger is correlated with overall welfare status. Further, scoring dogs outside of their home pens and in response to different stimuli would lend additional insight into both the behavioral wellbeing of dogs and the validity of the tool.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating FIDO: Developing and pilot testing the Field Instantaneous Dog Observation tool

Bauer¹,

Jordan

Colon

et al. 2017

Pet Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HIGHLIGHTS• The Field Instantaneous Dog Observation (FIDO) tool, a non-invasive, field ready tool designed to capture the immediate welfare status of dogs housed in commercial breeding facilities was developed and pilot tested for inter-rater reliability.• Affiliative or neutral (green) responses to approach were most commonly identified by both novice and expert raters in this study.• Both expert and novice raters achieved substantial levels of agreement when using the behavioral component of the FIDO tool.• There was no statistically significant effect of caretaker presence on response to approach in this study. Page 1Creative AbstractField assessments of the health and welfare of kenneled dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) must be both accurate and rapid. In order to facilitate such evaluations, especially by individuals with limited training in canine behavior and welfare, a non-invasive tool was developed and pilot-tested utilizing dogs housed in commercial breeding facilities. Behavioral responses to approach were organized into three categories: red, indicating a fearful response to approach, green, indicating an affiliative or neutral response to approach, and yellow, indicating an ambivalent response to approach. The inter-rater reliability (IRR) of the tool when used by both behavioral experts and novice raters was evaluated with and without the presence of the dog's familiar caretaker. Utilizing Cohen's kappa, the experts had almost perfect levels of agreement (kappa=0.87).The novice raters had substantial levels of agreement (kappa=0.74). Overall, the dogs assessed by the novice raters had high proportions of green responses to approach and there was no statistically significant effect of caretaker presence on the proportion of green responses to approach. The assessment tool evaluated herein appears to have a high degree of IRR whether used by experts in canine behavior or by novice raters and may be a useful screening tool to determine the need for more in-depth welfare assessments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Along these lines, assessments of fear have been included as key behavioral indices in evaluations of welfare in production species (Muri et al 2013;Powell et al 2016). Likewise, fear in dogs has been used as an indicator of their early rearing experiences that has implications for their overall quality of life.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating FIDO: Developing and pilot testing the Field Instantaneous Dog Observation tool

Bauer¹,

Jordan

Colon

et al. 2017

Pet Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The response of sows in stalls to approaching hand contact and the response of free-moving sows in groups to approach by an observer, had been validated by Scott et al (2009) for on-farm welfare assessment in different housing systems. However, according to Powell et al (2016), it should be noted that the human approaching touch is a valid measure of fear to humans in experimental settings, but impractical for on-farm use due to the need for animals to be individually tested in a purpose-built test arena.…”

Section: Measures Of Harmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of human-animal relationship on animal productivity and welfare

Mota-Rojas

Broom

Orihuela

et al. 2020

JABB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a literature review of the effects of humans´ relationships with farm animals on animal productivity and welfare, including the following topics: definition of the concept and description of different tests that have been developed to measure human-animal relationship (HAR). Temperament and tameness, which have been considered as farm animal characteristics that are important in HAR, as are stockperson attitudes. Some international farm animal welfare protocols are also described, together with negative and positive stimuli that affect farm animal welfare and productivity. In addition to some factors affecting the quality of HAR. We conclude that even with improved precision farming and automation: a) a good HAR is still fundamental to improve farm animal welfare with associated health and production benefits and b) with the numerous tests assessing fear of humans, many are not commercially applicable.

show abstract

“…Data showed that there were no treatment or treatment x time differences during the HAT (Table 2), suggesting that the HAT could be administered by either familiar or unfamiliar humans. Other researchers suggest that pigs tend to generalize about humans based on previous interactions 11,12,13 ; therefore, a pig's previous experiences with humans need to be positive. This challenge can also be remedied with a vigilant experimental design; for each block, a sufficient number of experimental units represented for each treatment of interest is needed.…”

Section: Limitations Of the Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Repeated behavioral tests that measure the change of affective state in a laboratory pig may be good candidates for distinguishing an animal with a prepathological condition from healthy animals. For example, in-pen HATs were used for the commercial pig production to help farmers select healthy pigs with good temperament or modify management and housing strategies that caused distress, injury, and sickness 11,12 . These tests were used to quantify the motivation and overall affective state of one pig or a group of pigs 13 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noninvasive, In-pen Approach Test for Laboratory-housed Pigs

Hulbert¹,

Bortoluzzi²,

Luo³

et al. 2019

JoVE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) incidences have increased in both civilian and military populations, and many researchers are adopting a porcine model for TBI. Unlike rodent models for TBI, there are few behavioral tests that have been standardized. A larger animal requires more invasive handling in test areas than rodents, which potentially adds stress and variation to the animals' responses. Here, the human approach test (HAT) is described, which was developed to be performed in front of laboratory pigs' home pen. It is noninvasive, but flexible enough that it allows for differences in housing set-ups.During the HAT, three behavioral ethograms were developed and then a formula was applied to create an approach index (AI). Results indicate that the HAT and its index, AI, are sensitive enough to detect mild and temporary alterations in pigs' behavior after a mild TBI (mTBI). In addition, although specific behavior outcomes are housing-dependent, the use of an AI reduces variation and allows for consistent measurements across laboratories. This test is reliable and valid; HAT can be used across many laboratories and for various types of porcine models of injury, sickness, and distress. This test was developed for an optimized manual timestamping method such that the observer consistently spends no more than 9 min on each sample.

show abstract

Comparison of methods to assess fear of humans in commercial breeding gilts and sows

Cited by 11 publications

References 13 publications

Evaluating FIDO: Developing and pilot testing the Field Instantaneous Dog Observation tool

Evaluating FIDO: Developing and pilot testing the Field Instantaneous Dog Observation tool

Effects of human-animal relationship on animal productivity and welfare

Noninvasive, In-pen Approach Test for Laboratory-housed Pigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About