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

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.

[1]  H. Gonyou,et al.  Effects of frequent interactions with humans on growing pigs , 1986 .

[2]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude , 2007 .

[3]  P. Hemsworth.  Human–animal interactions in livestock production , 2003 .

[4]  P. Hemsworth,et al.  The integration of human-animal relations into animal welfare monitoring schemes , 2009, Animal Welfare.

[5]  L. Pedersen,et al.  The influence of adverse or gentle handling procedures on sexual behaviour in fearful and confident sows , 2003 .

[6]  K. Carlstead.  A comparative approach to the study of Keeper-Animal Relationships in the zoo. , 2009, Zoo biology.

[7]  C. Phillips,et al.  The effects of personality of keepers and tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) on their behaviour in an interactive zoo exhibit , 2007 .

[8]  P. Hemsworth,et al.  Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals , 1998 .

[9]  Gareth Davey.  Visitors' Effects on the Welfare of Animals in the Zoo: A Review , 2007, Journal of applied animal welfare science : JAAWS.

[10]  C. McCrindle.  Human-livestock interactions - the stockperson and the productivity and welfare of intensively farmed animals, P.H. Hemsworth and G.C. Coleman : book review , 1998 .

[11]  S. Waiblinger,et al.  The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows , 2002 .

[12]  S. Thomas,et al.  Can training zoo-housed primates compromise their conservation? A case study using Abyssinian colobus monkeys (Colobus guereza) , 2005 .

[13]  G. Hosey.  Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science Hediger Revisited: How Do Zoo Animals See Us? , 2022 .

[14]  P. Hemsworth,et al.  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 , 1989 .

[15]  A. Field.  Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics, 5th edition , 2017 .

[16]  P. Hemsworth,et al.  Conditioned approach-avoidance responses to humans: the ability of pigs to associate feeding and aversive social experiences in the presence of humans with humans , 1996 .

[17]  G. Hosey.  A preliminary model of human–animal relationships in the zoo , 2008 .

[18]  J. G. Adair,et al.  The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact. , 1984 .

[19]  F. Chiarotti,et al.  Effects of positive interaction with caretakers on the behaviour of socially housed common marmosets ( Callithrix jacchus ) , 2009 .

[20]  I. Veissier,et al.  Stockmanship and Farm Animal Welfare , 2003, Animal Welfare.

[21]  K. Baker.  BENEFITS OF POSITIVE HUMAN INTERACTION FOR SOCIALLY-HOUSED CHIMPANZEES. , 2004, Animal welfare.

[22]  Andy P. Field,et al.  Discovering Statistics Using Ibm Spss Statistics , 2017 .

[23]  S. Ward,et al.  The implications of husbandry training on zoo animal response rates , 2013 .

[24]  W. B. Gross,et al.  Effects of early environmental stresses on chicken body weight, antibody response to RBC antigens, feed efficiency, and response to fasting. , 1980, Avian diseases.

[25]  I. Veissier,et al.  The farmers’ influence on calves’ behaviour, health and production of a veal unit , 2001 .

[26]  G. Coleman,et al.  Using qualitative behaviour assessment to explore the link between stockperson behaviour and dairy calf behaviour , 2014 .

[27]  G. Hutcheson.  The Multivariate Social Scientist , 1999 .

[28]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Reporting : The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research , 2010 .

[29]  P. Hemsworth,et al.  Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. , 2000, Journal of animal science.