The caretaker-pig relationship and training strategies to improve pig welfare

Transcription

1 The caretaker-pig relationship and training strategies to improve pig welfare Grahame Coleman Animal Welfare University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, Australia

2 Introduction Our research, which began more than 20 years ago has shown that stockperson play a vital role in determining the productivity, meat quality and welfare of the animals under their care and control.

3 PH1 Topics for discussion are: 1. Relationships between pig fear and productivity 2. Relationships between human behaviour and pig fear 3. Human behaviour on farm 4. Relationships between human attitudes and human behaviour 5. Model of human-animal interactions 6. Approach to training - Prohand The research is a combination of observational studies on-farm and controlled experimental research. Only a small selection of research results presented here

4 Slide 3 PH1! Paul Hemsworth, 10/23/2017

5 Assessing fear of humans - Approach test 4

6 5

7 19 pig farms Time to interact (s) Farms Variation in fear of humans, as assessed by the approach behaviour of pigs to a stationary experimenter, at 19 Australian piggeries PH2 (Hemsworth and Coleman, 2011).

8 Slide 6 PH2 Hemsworth and Coleamn 2011 Paul Hemsworth, 10/23/2017

9 1. Fear productivity relationships Consistent negative relationships, based on farm averages, between fear of human and productivity found in studies in the dairy, pig and poultry industries.

10 Correlations between fear of humans and animal productivity Pigs Dairy cows Meat chickens Laying hens Fear & Productivity Hemsworth et al (1981b) * Hemsworth et al (1989) * Hemsworth et al (1994c) Breuer et al (2000) * Hemsworth et al (2000) Hemsworth et al (1994a) ** Cransberg (1996) Hemsworth et al (1996) Barnett et al (1992) **

11 2. Human handling and productivity On-farm studies show relationships between stockperson behaviour and pigs fear of humans Experimental handling studies, particularly on pigs, have consistently shown that handling treatments that elicit high levels of fear adversely affect animal productivity. A number of these handling studies implicate stress in the effects of aversive handling on animal productivity.

12 Stockperson behaviour ve behaviour - slaps, hits, shouting, fast speed of movement, unexpected movement, etc. +ve behaviour - pats, talking, hand resting on back of animal, slow and deliberate movement, etc.

13 Large integrated farms Variation in the behaviour of 46 stockpeople at large integrated piggeries (Hemsworth and Coleman, 2011) PH3

14 Slide 11 PH3 Hemsworth and Coleman 2011 Paul Hemsworth, 10/23/2017

15 Stockperson behaviour - fear relationships Consistent relationships between stockperson behaviour and animal fear found in studies in the dairy, pig and poultry industries

16 Correlations between stockperson handling & fear of humans (on-farm) Industry Study -ve stockperson behaviour and fear Pig Hemsworth et al. (1989) -0.45* Coleman et al. (1998) -0.40* Dairy Breuer et al. (2000) 0.30 Hemsworth et al. (2000) 0.33** Waiblinger et al. (2002) 0.47** Meat chicken Hemsworth et al. (1996a) 0.32 Cransberg et al. (2000) 0.43* Egg Edwards (2009) 0.59** Correlation coefficients with * = P < 0.05 and ** = P < 0.01

17 Handling and fear of humans (time to approach) - experimental APPROACH TIME Positive Negative Hemsworth et al (1981a) 2. Gonyou et al (1986) 3. Hemsworth et al (1987a) 4. Hemsworth et al (1986) 5. Hemsworth & Barnett (1991) 6. Hemsworth et al (1996) 14

18 Handling and stress physiology of pigs Experiment - ve P value handling Hemsworth et al. (1981) Basal cortisol 0.05 Gonyou et al. (1986) Adrenal glands 0.05 Hemsworth et al. (1986) Basal cortisol 0.05 Hemsworth et al. (1987) Basal cortisol 0.01 Hemsworth & Barnett (1991) Basal cortsiol NS Hemsworth et al. (1996) Adrenal glands 0.01

19 Handling, fear and productivity in pigs ` Experiment -ve handling P value Hemsworth et al. (1981) Growth rate 0.05 Gonyou et al. (1986) Growth rate 0.05 Hemsworth et al. (1986) Pregnancy rate 0.05 Hemsworth et al. (1987) Growth rate 0.05 Hemsworth et al. (1996) Growth rate 0.05

20 In a fear provoking situation, fear will lead to either: Defensive behaviour or Avoidance behaviour These function to protect the animal from potentially harmful situations:

21 Correlations between fear of humans and the ease of movement of 24 pigs along an unfamiliar route by an unfamiliar handler (Hemsworth et al., 1994) Variables recorded in ease of movement test: Time to move Baulks Score Variables recorded in test to assess fear of humans Time to approach experimenter Number of interactions with experimenter * -0.63** -0.42** -0.42* 0.51* Correlation coefficients with * = P<0.05 and ** = P<0.01 Score was given based on ease of movement with 0 reflecting substantial difficulty and 4 reflecting little or no difficulty in moving the pig

22 Conclusion Negative fear-productivity relationship found in the pig industry Fear accounted for about 20% of variation in reproductive performance between farms Stress as a consequence of fear of humans limits pig productivity & welfare Fear of humans make pigs more difficult to handle

23 Need to recognize that some of the stockperson behaviours that elicit high fear if used regularly may be: routinely used, and appear intuitively harmless. For example: shouting and fast speed of movement moderate hits and slaps. Although overt cruelty can occur, it is not commonly observed.

24 4. Attitudes and behaviour The immediate driver of volitional human behaviour is attitude towards the behaviour Field observations show relationships between attitudes to handling pigs and observed stockperson behaviour 21

25 Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen and Fishbein) Attitude Normative beliefs Intention Behaviour Control beliefs 22

26 Stockperson attitudes and behaviour on farm Correlations between attitudes to effort and -ve behaviour Correlations coefficients Pig industry Hemsworth et al (1989) -0.47* Hemsworth et al (1994c) Coleman et al (1996) Dairy industry Breuer et al (2000) -0.50** Hemsworth et al (2000) -0.36** Waiblinger et al. (2002) -0.50** -ve correlations between +ve attitude to effort and -ve behaviour. Similar for other attitudes.

27 Principles of individual behaviour change Cognitive-behaviour consistency Theory of planned behaviour Specificity of behaviour Volitional behaviour Motivation Underlying beliefs (cognitions) 24

28 5. A model of human-animal interactions in the livestock industries (Hemsworth and Coleman) Stockperson Animal Attitudes Behaviour Fear Productivity & Welfare Stress

29 Cognitive-behavioural training - pigs To change the behaviour of farmers towards pigs ultimately requires: targeting the beliefs that underlie the behaviour, targeting the behaviour in question, and then maintaining these changed beliefs and behaviour.

30 Inducing behavioural change involves: Imparting knowledge and skills, Changing established habits, Altering well-established attitudes and beliefs, Targeting denial, offence, counterarguments, counter examples, etc., Preparing the person to handle stressful situations and reactions from others towards the individual following change.

31 Targeting beliefs (cognition) For example, Sensitivity of pigs to handling, especially -ve handling Importance of positive interactions (ie +ve attitudes to positive contact) Importance of avoiding excessive effort in handling (ie +ve attitudes to minimising verbal and physical effort) Effects of handling on both pig (eg ease of handling) and the stockperson (eg job satisfaction).

32 Targeting behaviour For example, recognising the difference between ve and +ve interactions appreciating when to use -ve interactions, minimise use of ve interactions (slaps, hits, shouting, fast speed of movement, unexpected movement) maximise use of +ve interactions (pats, talking, slow and deliberate movement)

33 Targeting animal behaviour For example, recognising fear responses seeking feedback on the behavioural responses of animals to handling.

34 An intervention study establishing causality and validating training in the pig industry Two treatments imposed on two randomly assigned groups of farms: Intervention - cognitive-behavioural intervention procedure, targeting key stockperson attitudes and behaviour Control - no intervention was attempted.

35 Measurements Stockperson attitudes - behavioural beliefs about handling animals. Stockperson behaviours - number and percentage of negative tactile behaviours. Animal behaviour - behavioural response to humans. Animal productivity - piglets/sow/year.

36 PH4 The effects of cognitive-behavioural training on stockperson and sow variables (n=25 farms) Variables Stockperson attitudes +ve Beliefs about petting Change following Training (relative to Control) P value 15% 0.05 Stockperson behaviour -ve (%) 31% 0.01 Sow behaviour Time near experimenter (s) Sow productivity 40% 0.05 Piglets/sow/year 7% 0.10

37 Slide 33 PH4 Add reference for this audience - Hemsworth et al. (1994) Paul Hemsworth, 10/23/2017

38 Intervention study in a pork abattoir Results of an Analysis of Variance on stockperson behaviour (n=21) Variable Control Intervention P value Stockperson behaviour Highly negative behaviours

39 Intervention study in a pork abattoir Variable After training Before training Batch The Animal Welfare P value Ham ph Loin ph <0.001 Weight loss (kg)

40 6. Structure of ProHand: a cognitivebehavioural training program Two formal training components The Animal Welfare Computerised training with group discussion Review and problem solving approx 6 weeks later Program can be used on-line or on a local computer (Windows or Mac)

41 The computerised programme is individually worked through at stockperson s own pace and individualized feedback is given Group sessions where stockpeople discuss a number of key questions and issues raised by the trainer These group sessions enable participants to raise problems with their peers and provide opportunities for the participants to further encourage ambivalent stockpeople to accept the key recommendations. 37

42 Structure of ProHand Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 10 INTRODUCTION ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE FEAR OF HUMANS IN PIGS THE EFFECT OF FEAR OF HUMANS ON EASE OF HANDLING OF PIGS THE EFFECT OF FEAR OF HUMANS ON THE MEAT QUALITY AND WELFARE OF PIGS HOW TO AVOID THE DEVELOPMENT OF FEAR IN YOUR PIGS WHAT DETERMINES OUR BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS PIGS? (including questionnaire feedback) PROFESSIONAL HANDLING GUIDELINES FOR STOCKPEOPLE MANAGING PIGS HOW TO MAINTAIN CHANGES IN YOUR BEHAVIOUR CONCLUSION

43 Selected t tests of participant feedback. t Sig. Improved handling techniques from Prohand Reduced negative handling following prohand Staffing, time issues Improved working conditions Working with pigs easier Questions were scored on a 5-point scale. The scoring direction is indicated in the table. Scores were compared against 3 as the neutral point. 39

44 Conclusions 1. Both technical and behavioural training of stockpeople are necessary To not only reduce the stress associated with handling and husbandry procedures, but also to improve the motivation in stockpeople to learn new technical skills and knowledge and to apply these competencies to the management of the animals under their care. 2. ProHand shown to be practical and effective 40

45 Thank you! 41

46 A quick look at ProHand 42