# Human-animal relationship influences husbandry practices, animal welfare and productivity in pig farming

Françoise Pol, F Kling-Eveillard, F Champigneulle, E Fresnay, M Ducrocq, V Courboulay

► To cite this version:

Françoise Pol, F Kling-Eveillard, F Champigneulle, E Fresnay, M Ducrocq, et al. Human-animal relationship influences husbandry practices, animal welfare and productivity in pig farming. Animal, 2020, 15 (2), pp.100103. 10.1016/j.animal.2020.100103. anses-04424117

HAL Id: anses-04424117

https://anses.hal.science/anses-04424117

Submitted on 29 Jan 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Human-animal relationship influences husbandry practices, animal welfare and productivity in pig farming

Françoise Pol, F Kling-Eveillard, F Champigneulle, E Fresnay, M Ducrocq, V Courboulay

► To cite this version:

Françoise Pol, F Kling-Eveillard, F Champigneulle, E Fresnay, M Ducrocq, et al. Human-animal relationship influences husbandry practices, animal welfare and productivity in pig farming. Animal, 2020, 15 (2), pp.100103. 10.1016/j.animal.2020.100103. anses-04424117

HAL Id: anses-04424117

https://anses.hal.science/anses-04424117v1

Submitted on 29 Jan 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Human-animal relationship influences husbandry practices, animal welfare and productivity in pig farming

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

F. Pol<sup>a,*</sup>, F. Kling-Eveillard<sup>b</sup>, F. Champigneulle<sup>a</sup>, E. Fresnay<sup>c</sup>, M. Ducrocq<sup>c</sup>, V. Courboulay<sup>c</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

**Article history:**

Received 29 June 2020

Received in revised form 6 October 2020

Accepted 8 October 2020

Available online 15 December 2020

**Keywords:**

Behavioral test

Farmer profile

Fear of humans

One welfare

Pig-human interaction

## ABSTRACT

The nature of the relationship between humans and farm animals has multiple repercussions on the animals and the farmers and varies with farmers attitudes towards their animals. In particular, this relationship influences animal welfare and human working conditions. The present study, part of a larger research project investigating human-animal relationship (HAR) in pig farming and ways to improve it, had two objectives: 1) to investigate the HAR in a diversity of pig farming situations and to evaluate the possible correlation between farmer attitudes, pigs' reactions to humans, husbandry practices, animal health, welfare and productivity and 2) to find a way to rapidly assign a farmer to a profile, in order to better adapt course content during training sessions on HAR. The study focused on 52 farrow-to-finish farms and consisted of a semi-structured interview with the farmer, observations of the farmer in contact with his/her livestock, two human approach tests conducted on sows and growers and productivity data. Finally, a questionnaire was left at the farm to be filled out by all stockpersons on the farm. Interviews, analyzed using a thematic analysis followed by multiple correspondence analysis and ascendant hierarchical clustering, showed that some farmers develop husbandry practices to improve their HARs and identified three farmer profiles that have been named in relation to the place of the HAR in their profession: Profile 1 farmers for whom HAR is secondary in their work with their pigs, Profile 2 for whom the HAR is useful in their work with their pigs and Profile 3 for whom HAR is central in their work with their pigs. Logistic regression models of the relationships between behavioral tests and productivity data showed that confident sows produce and wean more piglets than fearful sows and that sows of Profile 3 farmers trust more humans than those of Profile 1 or 2 farmers. Farmers' responses to the questionnaire did not predict their profile assignment. Our results confirm the main role of the farmer's attitude towards animals on their farming practices, animal welfare and productivity. The farmers who have more confident pigs and better productivity are those for whom the farm animal is central to their profession, express the most pleasure in working with them and convey empathy for them.

© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The Animal Consortium. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Implications

This study identified pig husbandry practices that can improve animal welfare and farmers' working conditions. These practices can be taught to farmers in order to improve the way they handle their farm animals. The study also identified three different profiles of pig farmers according to their attitude to their pigs and the relationship they have with them. Knowing that, training programmes on pig farming practices can adapt their course content according to their audience. In demonstrating the link between animal welfare, animal productivity and working conditions, the study also provides knowledge to motivate farmers to improve their animal management practices.

## Introduction

The nature of the relationship between humans and farm animals has repercussions on both animals and humans. In animals, the human-animal relationship (HAR) influences performance (Hemsworth, 2003; Kauppinen et al., 2012), health and welfare (Hemsworth and Coleman, 2011; Zulkifli, 2013). Good HARs can limit fearfulness and human-related stress (Boissy, 1995) and are an indicator for animal welfare assessments (Welfare Quality Consortium, 2009). In humans, HAR influences working conditions, quality of life, health and safety (Hemsworth et al., 2018). Human-animal relationship is also a key element in the social acceptability of livestock farming because it partly characterizes the professional ethics of farmers (Larrère and Larrère, 2000). Positive HAR is described as elements of positive welfare by farmers (Vigors and Lawrence, 2019).

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail (Anses), B.P. 53, 22440 Ploufragan, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Institut de l'Élevage-Idele, 149 rue de Bercy, 75012 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> IFIP - Institut du Porc, B.P. 35104, 35651 Le Rheu Cedex, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: francoise.pol@anses.fr (F. Pol).</footnote>
# Human-animal relationship influences husbandry practices, animal welfare and productivity in pig farming

F. Pol<sup>a,*</sup>, F. Kling-Eveillard<sup>b</sup>, F. Champigneulle<sup>a</sup>, E. Fresnay<sup>c</sup>, M. Ducrocq<sup>c</sup>, V. Courboulay<sup>c</sup>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

## ARTICLE INFO

**Article history:**

Received 29 June 2020

Received in revised form 6 October 2020

Accepted 8 October 2020

Available online 15 December 2020

**Keywords:**

Behavioral test

Farmer profile

Fear of humans

One welfare

Pig-human interaction

## ABSTRACT

The nature of the relationship between humans and farm animals has multiple repercussions on the animals and the farmers and varies with farmers attitudes towards their animals. In particular, this relationship influences animal welfare and human working conditions. The present study, part of a larger research project investigating human-animal relationship (HAR) in pig farming and ways to improve it, had two objectives: 1) to investigate the HAR in a diversity of pig farming situations and to evaluate the possible correlation between farmer attitudes, pigs' reactions to humans, husbandry practices, animal health, welfare and productivity and 2) to find a way to rapidly assign a farmer to a profile, in order to better adapt course content during training sessions on HAR. The study focused on 52 farrow-to-finish farms and consisted of a semi-structured interview with the farmer, observations of the farmer in contact with his/her livestock, two human approach tests conducted on sows and growers and productivity data. Finally, a questionnaire was left at the farm to be filled out by all stockpersons on the farm. Interviews, analyzed using a thematic analysis followed by multiple correspondence analysis and ascendant hierarchical clustering, showed that some farmers develop husbandry practices to improve their HARs and identified three farmer profiles that have been named in relation to the place of the HAR in their profession: Profile 1 farmers for whom HAR is secondary in their work with their pigs, Profile 2 for whom the HAR is useful in their work with their pigs and Profile 3 for whom HAR is central in their work with their pigs. Logistic regression models of the relationships between behavioral tests and productivity data showed that confident sows produce and wean more piglets than fearful sows and that sows of Profile 3 farmers trust more humans than those of Profile 1 or 2 farmers. Farmers' responses to the questionnaire did not predict their profile assignment. Our results confirm the main role of the farmer's attitude towards animals on their farming practices, animal welfare and productivity. The farmers who have more confident pigs and better productivity are those for whom the farm animal is central to their profession, express the most pleasure in working with them and convey empathy for them.

© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The Animal Consortium. This is an open access article

under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Implications

This study identified pig husbandry practices that can improve animal welfare and farmers' working conditions. These practices can be taught to farmers in order to improve the way they handle their farm animals. The study also identified three different profiles of pig farmers according to their attitude to their pigs and the relationship they have with them. Knowing that, training programmes on pig farming practices can adapt their course content according to their audience. In demonstrating the link between animal welfare, animal productivity and working conditions, the study also provides knowledge to motivate farmers to improve their animal management practices.

## Introduction

The nature of the relationship between humans and farm animals has repercussions on both animals and humans. In animals, the human-animal relationship (HAR) influences performance (Hemsworth, 2003; Kauppinen et al., 2012), health and welfare (Hemsworth and Coleman, 2011; Zulkifli, 2013). Good HARs can limit fearfulness and human-related stress (Boissy, 1995) and are an indicator for animal welfare assessments (Welfare Quality Consortium, 2009). In humans, HAR influences working conditions, quality of life, health and safety (Hemsworth et al., 2018). Human-animal relationship is also a key element in the social acceptability of livestock farming because it partly characterizes the professional ethics of farmers (Larrère and Larrère, 2000). Positive HAR is described as elements of positive welfare by farmers (Vigors and Lawrence, 2019).

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail (Anses), B.P. 53, 22440 Ploufragan, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Institut de l'Élevage-Idele, 149 rue de Bercy, 75012 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> IFIP - Institut du Porc, B.P. 35104, 35651 Le Rheu Cedex, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: francoise.pol@anses.fr (F. Pol).</footnote>
Multiple repercussions of HAR on both animals and humans indicate that a multidisciplinary approach can be used to study it (Boivin et al., 2012), combining human point of view with social science and animal point of view with ethology. Animal point of view can be analyzed using ethological methods, particularly through observation of animals during husbandry practices or in response to a human approach test but also through their productivity and health (Hemsworth and Coleman, 2011). Human point of view may be influenced by recent developments in pig housing and management systems, such as stall-free housing for gestating sows (European Union Council, 2009), increase of farm size (Roguet, 2017), introduction of Precision Livestock® farming (Kling-Eveillard et al., 2020), which can modify the type and the number of human-animal contacts or interactions or by the growing demand of consumers for animal welfare considerations, which may influence the farmers' perception of the animal. It can be analyzed through the observation of their husbandry practices regarding the farm animals, the working environment, particularly with regard to the ergonomics of the workstations, the laborious nature of the work and the work schedule. It can also be analyzed by questioning farmers on their perception of the farm animals, their knowledge and feelings.

To improve HAR for the benefit of both farmers and animals, it is necessary to find out the good levers of change. Training can try to modify behaviors, attitudes or knowledge. According to the Theory of Planned Behavior or the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Albarracín et al., 2005), the important dispositional factor in predicting behavior is attitude and other dispositional factors, including past experiences, knowledge of the animals' cognitive and sensory abilities, mood/emotion, personality, (Austin et al., 2005; Dockès and Kling-Eveillard, 2006; Waiblinger et al., 2006; Burton et al., 2012), operate indirectly through attitudes.

Hemsworth and Coleman (2011) and Hemsworth et al. (2018) used this theory to develop cognitive behavioral intervention based on the attitudes to improve stockperson behavior, and improve animal welfare and productivity as demonstrated in commercial settings (Hemsworth et al., 1994; Coleman et al., 2000; Hemsworth et al., 2002; Windschnurer et al., 2009; Coleman and Hemsworth, 2014; Tallet et al., 2018). However, to ensure that training programmes are as relevant as possible, they should be adapted to each situation and to the particular need of each farmer. Sociological approach based on questionnaires or interviews has already shown a diversity of farmers' profiles regarding HAR and according to the proximity of farmers to their farm animals (Dockès and Kling-Eveillard, 2007) and could be used to address farmers attitudes.

The present study is a part of a larger research project named RHAPORC ("Relationship between human and animal in pig farming", CASDAR project, funded by the French Ministry of Agriculture) investigating HAR in pig farming and proposing ways to improve it, to enhance welfare for both animals and farmers and, potentially, to improve animal productivity. The present study had two objectives: 1) to investigate HAR in a diversity of pig farming situations and to evaluate the possible correlation between farmers' attitudes, animal behavioral response to humans, husbandry practices, animal health, welfare and productivity and 2) if farmer profiles could be assigned according to their attitudes, to find a way to rapidly associate a farmer with a given profile and better adapt improvement/training programmes.

This study consisted of a survey of French pig farms and was based on the multidisciplinary approach developed by Boivin et al. (2012). On each farm, the farmer was interviewed and observed, their pigs were observed and productivity data were collected.

## Material and methods

### Farms

The sampling design strove to cover a diversity of HARs and did not aim to be representative of the French pig farmer population. Farm

advisors were asked to propose a list of farms to achieve a sample stratification based on two criteria, in order to select a diverse range of participants. The first criterion was the farmer's typology, with either an "animal carer" or "farm manager" orientation; this typology has already been described to correspond to different farmer profiles (Kling-Eveillard et al., 2020). The second criterion was the degree of the farmer's specialization, being more general or "multitask", mainly on small farms, or specialized in a given production unit, mainly for large farms employing several stockpersons. This second criterion was chosen to obtain diversity of farm management practices which, we hypothesized, can influence the nature of HAR.

The study focused on 52 farrow-to-finish farms located in Normandy, Pays de Loire and Brittany, France. In each farm, the survey lasted a half day and had four parts. Two trained female investigators each carried out half of the surveys.

### Data collection

To meet our first objective, data were collected in different steps to assess the farmer and pig points of view. The farmer's point of view was assessed through 1) a face-to-face interview which aimed to collect information on the farmer's perception of the pigs and his/her husbandry practices and 2) the observation of the farmer with the sows, to assess his/her practices involving animals. The pig's point of view was evaluated through 1) the reaction of sows when the farmer enters their pen; 2) human approach tests conducted on sows and growers; 3) collection of productivity data for sows and fattening pigs and 4) observation of some health-related parameters for sows. To meet our second objective, the farmer had to fill in a questionnaire composed of closed-ended questions.

The first part of the survey was a semi-structured interview lasting around 1 h with the farm manager or with the stockperson in charge of the sows, whom we will call "the farmer". The plan of the interview was built on previous results (Kling-Eveillard et al., 2020) and was discussed in the RHAPORC working group, including scientists specialized in pig behavior, pig relationship with humans and pig farming. The survey included four main subjects: 1) presentation of the farm and of the farmer, 2) presentation of his/her work practices, 3) his/her perception of pigs and 4) the HAR from his/her point of view. The interviews were recorded.

The second part of the survey was the observation of the farmer in contact with his/her animals. The farmer was invited to enter the sow pens and make the sows get up. The sow pens were chosen for the behavior test, as explained below. During this test, the farmer was observed by the investigator who scored the way the farmer moved in the pen around the animals: physical contact (no contact, positive contact (touching or petting sows) and negative contact (forceful slaps or hitting) and voice contact (no contact, positive intonation, negative intonation as shouting). The investigator also scored the way the farmer made the sows get up (no need to touch the animal; gentle contact or moderate pats recorded as positive contacts; strong slaps or blows recorded as negative contacts). The farmer was also asked about the sows health issues he/she looks for in particular. The question was asked a first time before entry into the pen and a second time after exiting the pen. The second time, if the farmer did not mention any health issue, the investigator suggested some disorders, such as lammess or abscesses.

The third part of the survey consisted of observations of the pigs. For this part, the two investigators, quite physically similar, were wearing standard coverall for visitors or the clothing of the farm. The behavior of all the sows of the pen was scored when the farmer entered in the pen: restless, quiet or seeking contact. Then, the investigator assessed the sow's fear of humans on 30 sows and five gilts equally distributed from all the gestating animals on the farm and then randomly selected from each pen. The selection method consisted of counting the sows and to select a sow at a constant period, calculated according to the
Multiple repercussions of HAR on both animals and humans indicate that a multidisciplinary approach can be used to study it (Boivin et al., 2012), combining human point of view with social science and animal point of view with ethology. Animal point of view can be analyzed using ethological methods, particularly through observation of animals during husbandry practices or in response to a human approach test but also through their productivity and health (Hemsworth and Coleman, 2011). Human point of view may be influenced by recent developments in pig housing and management systems, such as stall-free housing for gestating sows (European Union Council, 2009), increase of farm size (Roguet, 2017), introduction of Precision Livestock® farming (Kling-Eveillard et al., 2020), which can modify the type and the number of human-animal contacts or interactions or by the growing demand of consumers for animal welfare considerations, which may influence the farmers' perception of the animal. It can be analyzed through the observation of their husbandry practices regarding the farm animals, the working environment, particularly with regard to the ergonomics of the workstations, the laborious nature of the work and the work schedule. It can also be analyzed by questioning farmers on their perception of the farm animals, their knowledge and feelings.

To improve HAR for the benefit of both farmers and animals, it is necessary to find out the good levers of change. Training can try to modify behaviors, attitudes or knowledge. According to the Theory of Planned Behavior or the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Albarracín et al., 2005), the important dispositional factor in predicting behavior is attitude and other dispositional factors, including past experiences, knowledge of the animals' cognitive and sensory abilities, mood/emotion, personality, (Austin et al., 2005; Dockès and Kling-Eveillard, 2006; Waiblinger et al., 2006; Burton et al., 2012), operate indirectly through attitudes.

Hemsworth and Coleman (2011) and Hemsworth et al. (2018) used this theory to develop cognitive behavioral intervention based on the attitudes to improve stockperson behavior, and improve animal welfare and productivity as demonstrated in commercial settings (Hemsworth et al., 1994; Coleman et al., 2000; Hemsworth et al., 2002; Windschnurer et al., 2009; Coleman and Hemsworth, 2014; Tallet et al., 2018). However, to ensure that training programmes are as relevant as possible, they should be adapted to each situation and to the particular need of each farmer. Sociological approach based on questionnaires or interviews has already shown a diversity of farmers' profiles regarding HAR and according to the proximity of farmers to their farm animals (Dockès and Kling-Eveillard, 2007) and could be used to address farmers attitudes.

The present study is a part of a larger research project named RHAPORC ("Relationship between human and animal in pig farming", CASDAR project, funded by the French Ministry of Agriculture) investigating HAR in pig farming and proposing ways to improve it, to enhance welfare for both animals and farmers and, potentially, to improve animal productivity. The present study had two objectives: 1) to investigate HAR in a diversity of pig farming situations and to evaluate the possible correlation between farmers' attitudes, animal behavioral response to humans, husbandry practices, animal health, welfare and productivity and 2) if farmer profiles could be assigned according to their attitudes, to find a way to rapidly associate a farmer with a given profile and better adapt improvement/training programmes.

This study consisted of a survey of French pig farms and was based on the multidisciplinary approach developed by Boivin et al. (2012). On each farm, the farmer was interviewed and observed, their pigs were observed and productivity data were collected.

## Material and methods

### Farms

The sampling design strove to cover a diversity of HARs and did not aim to be representative of the French pig farmer population. Farm

advisors were asked to propose a list of farms to achieve a sample stratification based on two criteria, in order to select a diverse range of participants. The first criterion was the farmer's typology, with either an "animal carer" or "farm manager" orientation; this typology has already been described to correspond to different farmer profiles (Kling-Eveillard et al., 2020). The second criterion was the degree of the farmer's specialization, being more general or "multitask", mainly on small farms, or specialized in a given production unit, mainly for large farms employing several stockpersons. This second criterion was chosen to obtain diversity of farm management practices which, we hypothesized, can influence the nature of HAR.

The study focused on 52 farrow-to-finish farms located in Normandy, Pays de Loire and Brittany, France. In each farm, the survey lasted a half day and had four parts. Two trained female investigators each carried out half of the surveys.

### Data collection

To meet our first objective, data were collected in different steps to assess the farmer and pig points of view. The farmer's point of view was assessed through 1) a face-to-face interview which aimed to collect information on the farmer's perception of the pigs and his/her husbandry practices and 2) the observation of the farmer with the sows, to assess his/her practices involving animals. The pig's point of view was evaluated through 1) the reaction of sows when the farmer enters their pen; 2) human approach tests conducted on sows and growers; 3) collection of productivity data for sows and fattening pigs and 4) observation of some health-related parameters for sows. To meet our second objective, the farmer had to fill in a questionnaire composed of closed-ended questions.

The first part of the survey was a semi-structured interview lasting around 1 h with the farm manager or with the stockperson in charge of the sows, whom we will call "the farmer". The plan of the interview was built on previous results (Kling-Eveillard et al., 2020) and was discussed in the RHAPORC working group, including scientists specialized in pig behavior, pig relationship with humans and pig farming. The survey included four main subjects: 1) presentation of the farm and of the farmer, 2) presentation of his/her work practices, 3) his/her perception of pigs and 4) the HAR from his/her point of view. The interviews were recorded.

The second part of the survey was the observation of the farmer in contact with his/her animals. The farmer was invited to enter the sow pens and make the sows get up. The sow pens were chosen for the behavior test, as explained below. During this test, the farmer was observed by the investigator who scored the way the farmer moved in the pen around the animals: physical contact (no contact, positive contact (touching or petting sows) and negative contact (forceful slaps or hitting) and voice contact (no contact, positive intonation, negative intonation as shouting). The investigator also scored the way the farmer made the sows get up (no need to touch the animal; gentle contact or moderate pats recorded as positive contacts; strong slaps or blows recorded as negative contacts). The farmer was also asked about the sows health issues he/she looks for in particular. The question was asked a first time before entry into the pen and a second time after exiting the pen. The second time, if the farmer did not mention any health issue, the investigator suggested some disorders, such as lammess or abscesses.

The third part of the survey consisted of observations of the pigs. For this part, the two investigators, quite physically similar, were wearing standard coverall for visitors or the clothing of the farm. The behavior of all the sows of the pen was scored when the farmer entered in the pen: restless, quiet or seeking contact. Then, the investigator assessed the sow's fear of humans on 30 sows and five gilts equally distributed from all the gestating animals on the farm and then randomly selected from each pen. The selection method consisted of counting the sows and to select a sow at a constant period, calculated according to the
total number of pregnant sows and pens. The behavioral test used was the one from the Welfare Quality “Good human–animal relationship” protocol (Welfare Quality Consortium, 2009) in which levels 0 and 2 were split into four different scores. Indeed, as the objective of this study is HAR, we thought it would be better to refine the scoring of sows. After the farmer had gotten the sows up and left the pen, the investigator entered and walked around the pen and then walked slowly into the pen to randomly select the tested sows. Then, the investigator walked slowly towards a sow and stayed motionless, crouching down next to the sow and tried to touch the sow between the ears. The three steps lasted 10 s each but could be reduced to 6 s so as not to be bothered by the other sows in small pens. The sows were also selected from every pens to limit the bias due to reaction of sows previously tested within the same pen. The “sow HAR score”, ranging from 0 (fearful sow) to 4 (confident sow), depended on the moment the sow moved away from the investigator: 0 if the sow moved away and did not come back as soon as the investigator walked slowly to her and stay approximatively 0.5 m away from her (level 2 of the Welfare Quality), 1 if the sow moved away and did not come back as soon as the investigator crouched down in front of her (level 2 of the Welfare Quality), 2 if the sow moved away and did not come back as soon as the investigator tried to touch her between the ears (level 1 of the Welfare Quality), 3 if the sow accepted the contact and then stayed close by (level 0 of the Welfare Quality) and 4 if the contact lasted more than 5 s (level 0 of the Welfare Quality).

At the end of the test, the investigator checked for the presence of lameness and abscesses on all the animals in the pen. These observations were then compared to what the farmers had previously stated: agreement between the farmer's statement and the investigator's observation for lameness (yes/no) and for abscesses (yes/no).

Fear of humans was also assessed on growers according to a test inspired by previous studies that implemented arena tests (Gonyou et al., 1986) or on farm test (Courboulay and Foubert, 2007; Courboulay et al., 2009) and to authors experience. The protocol was thus adapted to farming conditions, in the pig pens. The investigator entered the pen, walked slowly around the pen and then stopped close to the wall, away from the trough. Time required for the first and the third pigs to touch the investigator was then recorded. This measure more reflects the pig perception of human and not their reaction to a sudden event as the human entering into the pen (Courboulay et al., 2009). The investigator carried out this test in three pens, and the farmer carried out the same test in three other pens. The pens were randomly selected among growers weighing around 60 kg. Whereas this survey focused more on reproductive herd, HAR test were also performed on fattening pig to check whether the behavioral answer was the same on the farm for both types of animals. The number of pen was chosen to ensure that the same number of pens can be observed in each farm and that a minimum of repetitions are done.

In the fourth part of the survey, the investigators collected technical and economic data on the farm. They recorded, when possible, average farm productivity indicators of the previous year, such as the mean weaning-to-gestation interval, number of piglets born and weaned per litter, pre-weaning mortality and farrowing rate. For each sow included in the behavioral test, the investigator recorded individual reproduction data for the last litter of the sow, such as total number of piglets, total number of piglets born alive, number of weaned piglets per litter, weaning-to-gestation interval, farrowing interval, parity number and breed. For fattening pigs, the investigator recorded mortality, daily weight gain and time between weaning and slaughter measured during the previous year.

At the end of the survey, a multiple-choice questionnaire, in paper format and in several copies, was left at the farm to be filled out by the interviewed farmer and by all other stockpersons of the farm. It was left with a postage-paid envelope to encourage feedback and confidentiality of each respondent. It focused on the same four topics as the interview. Possible responses were given on a six-level scale, ranging

from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” or on a frequency scale ranging from “never” to “very often”.

## Analysis method

First, a qualitative thematic analysis of the interviews was carried out (Kling-Eveillard et al., 2020). The notes taken during the interview were augmented by listening to the recorded interview. A monograph was drafted for each interview, highlighting the farmer's point of view on the main topics addressed during the interview and the husbandry practices he/she uses on the farm. This analysis gave an overview of the farmer's farming practices and views about his/her work, the pigs and the HAR. It also helped to identify key points, which were converted into variables.

To identify farmer profiles, a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) followed by ascendant hierarchical clustering (AHC) was conducted. Farmer profiles were identified from the answers recorded during the interviews. To convert answers into variables, a summary grid was built from the thematic analysis first made. This grid broke down and homogenized the farmer's answers, dividing them according to the four main subjects of the interview. It ultimately grouped the most discriminating variables. At the end of this analysis, 31 qualitative variables regarding the farmer's vision of his/her job, his/her husbandry practices, his/her perception of his/her pigs and his/her point of view on HAR were selected as active variables. The 14 other variables regarding the presentation of the farm and of the farmer were considered as supplementary variables. In addition, 71 other supplementary qualitative variables were obtained from the animal behavior observations, the observation of the farmer and the returned questionnaires. Each variable had from two to six levels, but only a maximum of four levels were kept to ensure 10% of the sample at each level to maintain a consistent and robust number of responses at each level. Variables for which all farmers gave the same answer were not included in the analysis. Technical data provided 11 supplementary quantitative variables, which were categorized.

Only variables characterizing the profile at the threshold *P* < 0.05 were kept. The number of axes selected from the MCA for the AHC was determined using the Kaiser rule. Data processing and analysis were carried out using R software version 1.1.456 and its package FactoMineR version 1.41 (Le et al., 2008).

A logistic regression model was used to identify explanatory variables of the sow HAR score. The following variables were tested: sow housing (groups with feeding stalls, groups with trough feeding and large groups with electronic feeding stations), floor type (straw bedding and slatted flooring), farmer profile (1, 2 and 3), gilt socialization (yes or no), investigator (A or B), sow parity (1, 2–3, 4–5, 6 and more), gestation stage (early, mid, late), daily physical contact with animals (yes or no), sow group size (<8 sows, from 8 to 20 sows, more than 20 sows), pig breed (five genotypes), on-farm variability in responses (yes or no, see below), farmer gender and age (under 45 years old, from 45 to 54 years old and more than 54 years old) and number of sows on the farm (<200, from 200 to 499 and more than 499). A Mann–Whitney or Kruskal–Wallis test was done to individually analyze each variable effect on the sow HAR score.

To determine the on-farm variability in responses, an MCA followed by AHC was conducted using the 53 variables of the 98 usable questionnaires. All variables were considered as active, except those describing the respondents and their job. Except for three of them, respondents were divided into two clusters. Their profiles differed based on the cognitive abilities they think pigs have and on their appreciation of the practical consequences of a good HAR. This classification was used to determine the level of this yes-or-no variable, according to whether the respondents of the same farm belonged to the same cluster or not.

The relationship between farm productivity and the farmer profile was analyzed using a mixed model, introducing the following variables as fixed effects: sow breed, farmer profile, on-farm variability in
total number of pregnant sows and pens. The behavioral test used was the one from the Welfare Quality “Good human–animal relationship” protocol (Welfare Quality Consortium, 2009) in which levels 0 and 2 were split into four different scores. Indeed, as the objective of this study is HAR, we thought it would be better to refine the scoring of sows. After the farmer had gotten the sows up and left the pen, the investigator entered and walked around the pen and then walked slowly into the pen to randomly select the tested sows. Then, the investigator walked slowly towards a sow and stayed motionless, crouching down next to the sow and tried to touch the sow between the ears. The three steps lasted 10 s each but could be reduced to 6 s so as not to be bothered by the other sows in small pens. The sows were also selected from every pens to limit the bias due to reaction of sows previously tested within the same pen. The “sow HAR score”, ranging from 0 (fearful sow) to 4 (confident sow), depended on the moment the sow moved away from the investigator: 0 if the sow moved away and did not come back as soon as the investigator walked slowly to her and stay approximatively 0.5 m away from her (level 2 of the Welfare Quality), 1 if the sow moved away and did not come back as soon as the investigator crouched down in front of her (level 2 of the Welfare Quality), 2 if the sow moved away and did not come back as soon as the investigator tried to touch her between the ears (level 1 of the Welfare Quality), 3 if the sow accepted the contact and then stayed close by (level 0 of the Welfare Quality) and 4 if the contact lasted more than 5 s (level 0 of the Welfare Quality).

At the end of the test, the investigator checked for the presence of lameness and abscesses on all the animals in the pen. These observations were then compared to what the farmers had previously stated: agreement between the farmer's statement and the investigator's observation for lameness (yes/no) and for abscesses (yes/no).

Fear of humans was also assessed on growers according to a test inspired by previous studies that implemented arena tests (Gonyou et al., 1986) or on farm test (Courboulay and Foubert, 2007; Courboulay et al., 2009) and to authors experience. The protocol was thus adapted to farming conditions, in the pig pens. The investigator entered the pen, walked slowly around the pen and then stopped close to the wall, away from the trough. Time required for the first and the third pigs to touch the investigator was then recorded. This measure more reflects the pig perception of human and not their reaction to a sudden event as the human entering into the pen (Courboulay et al., 2009). The investigator carried out this test in three pens, and the farmer carried out the same test in three other pens. The pens were randomly selected among growers weighing around 60 kg. Whereas this survey focused more on reproductive herd, HAR test were also performed on fattening pig to check whether the behavioral answer was the same on the farm for both types of animals. The number of pen was chosen to ensure that the same number of pens can be observed in each farm and that a minimum of repetitions are done.

In the fourth part of the survey, the investigators collected technical and economic data on the farm. They recorded, when possible, average farm productivity indicators of the previous year, such as the mean weaning-to-gestation interval, number of piglets born and weaned per litter, pre-weaning mortality and farrowing rate. For each sow included in the behavioral test, the investigator recorded individual reproduction data for the last litter of the sow, such as total number of piglets, total number of piglets born alive, number of weaned piglets per litter, weaning-to-gestation interval, farrowing interval, parity number and breed. For fattening pigs, the investigator recorded mortality, daily weight gain and time between weaning and slaughter measured during the previous year.

At the end of the survey, a multiple-choice questionnaire, in paper format and in several copies, was left at the farm to be filled out by the interviewed farmer and by all other stockpersons of the farm. It was left with a postage-paid envelope to encourage feedback and confidentiality of each respondent. It focused on the same four topics as the interview. Possible responses were given on a six-level scale, ranging

from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” or on a frequency scale ranging from “never” to “very often”.

## Analysis method

First, a qualitative thematic analysis of the interviews was carried out (Kling-Eveillard et al., 2020). The notes taken during the interview were augmented by listening to the recorded interview. A monograph was drafted for each interview, highlighting the farmer's point of view on the main topics addressed during the interview and the husbandry practices he/she uses on the farm. This analysis gave an overview of the farmer's farming practices and views about his/her work, the pigs and the HAR. It also helped to identify key points, which were converted into variables.

To identify farmer profiles, a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) followed by ascendant hierarchical clustering (AHC) was conducted. Farmer profiles were identified from the answers recorded during the interviews. To convert answers into variables, a summary grid was built from the thematic analysis first made. This grid broke down and homogenized the farmer's answers, dividing them according to the four main subjects of the interview. It ultimately grouped the most discriminating variables. At the end of this analysis, 31 qualitative variables regarding the farmer's vision of his/her job, his/her husbandry practices, his/her perception of his/her pigs and his/her point of view on HAR were selected as active variables. The 14 other variables regarding the presentation of the farm and of the farmer were considered as supplementary variables. In addition, 71 other supplementary qualitative variables were obtained from the animal behavior observations, the observation of the farmer and the returned questionnaires. Each variable had from two to six levels, but only a maximum of four levels were kept to ensure 10% of the sample at each level to maintain a consistent and robust number of responses at each level. Variables for which all farmers gave the same answer were not included in the analysis. Technical data provided 11 supplementary quantitative variables, which were categorized.

Only variables characterizing the profile at the threshold *P* < 0.05 were kept. The number of axes selected from the MCA for the AHC was determined using the Kaiser rule. Data processing and analysis were carried out using R software version 1.1.456 and its package FactoMineR version 1.41 (Le et al., 2008).

A logistic regression model was used to identify explanatory variables of the sow HAR score. The following variables were tested: sow housing (groups with feeding stalls, groups with trough feeding and large groups with electronic feeding stations), floor type (straw bedding and slatted flooring), farmer profile (1, 2 and 3), gilt socialization (yes or no), investigator (A or B), sow parity (1, 2–3, 4–5, 6 and more), gestation stage (early, mid, late), daily physical contact with animals (yes or no), sow group size (<8 sows, from 8 to 20 sows, more than 20 sows), pig breed (five genotypes), on-farm variability in responses (yes or no, see below), farmer gender and age (under 45 years old, from 45 to 54 years old and more than 54 years old) and number of sows on the farm (<200, from 200 to 499 and more than 499). A Mann–Whitney or Kruskal–Wallis test was done to individually analyze each variable effect on the sow HAR score.

To determine the on-farm variability in responses, an MCA followed by AHC was conducted using the 53 variables of the 98 usable questionnaires. All variables were considered as active, except those describing the respondents and their job. Except for three of them, respondents were divided into two clusters. Their profiles differed based on the cognitive abilities they think pigs have and on their appreciation of the practical consequences of a good HAR. This classification was used to determine the level of this yes-or-no variable, according to whether the respondents of the same farm belonged to the same cluster or not.

The relationship between farm productivity and the farmer profile was analyzed using a mixed model, introducing the following variables as fixed effects: sow breed, farmer profile, on-farm variability in
responses; farm was a random effect and the sow HAR score was used as a covariable.

The relationship between the individual productivity results of sows and the profile of farmer was analyzed using a mixed model, introducing the sow HAR score, sow parity and their interaction as well as sow breed, farmer profile and on-farm variability in responses as fixed effects and farm as random effects. For this analysis, sow HAR scores of 0 to 2 and 3 to 4 of were pooled together; parities 2 and 3, 4 and 5 and 6 and above were also pooled together.

Productivity and behavior tests of growers were analyzed using a linear mixed model, introducing farm as a random effect and investigator, investigator clothing and farmer profile as fixed effects.

Data processing and analysis were carried out using RStudio for R software version 1.1.456 and its package nlme ("non-linear mixed effects") version 3.1-137.

To identify the most relevant questions from the questionnaire designed to discriminate the farmer profiles, three different prospective analyses were done on the data collected from the questionnaires. The first analysis consisted of constructing determination trees using the classification and regression tree (CART) method (Breiman et al., 2017) on the answers obtained from the questionnaire filled out by the interviewed farmers. Classification and regression tree is a statistical approach that can identify the best predictors of a profile among a list of variables, e.g. here, questions. The error rate of the tree was computed using the leave-one-out method. Classification and regression tree modeling was carried out using the statistical programme RStudio for R software and the packages Rpart (Therneau et al., 2019).

The second analysis considered all the answers from all the questionnaires (from interviewed farmers and from other stockpersons) and defined new farmer profiles using the same method described above (MCA followed by an AHC), with the same active variables. Farmers belonging to both typologies, the one obtained from the interview and the one obtained from the questionnaires, were compared. The third analysis was also a MCA followed by an AHC conducted on the variables obtained from the answers of all the questionnaires filled out by farmers and other stockpersons to identify the farmer profile. The on-farm variability in responses variable was included as the active variable in the analysis.

## Results

### Farm sample

The survey was conducted between April and July 2018. Among the 52 farmers surveyed, the farmers fell into the following typology-specialization pairs: multitask - managers (2), multitask - animal carers (13), specialized - managers (12), specialized - animal carers (11) and 14 were not characterized. The majority of the interviewed farmers were the owner of the farm (81%) and were men (71%). In 2016, the proportion of male farmers was 75% in France (Agreste Graph'Agri, 2019). The age distribution across the <35, 35-44, 45-54, 55-59 and >60-year-old age classes were, respectively, 10, 27, 35, 21 and 8%. The age distribution in the age classes of the whole French farmer population in 2016 was, respectively, 10, 18, 30, 19 and 14% (Agreste Graph'Agri, 2019). They had various education levels, ranging from standard agricultural education (17%) to an intermediate education level (64%) and a high education level (19%), whereas the percentage in the whole French farmer population in 2016 was, respectively, 36, 38 and 27% (Agreste Graph'Agri, 2019). Our sample is made up of farmers who are relatively younger and better trained than the French population of farmers.

Forty-two percentage of farms had <200 sows, 37% had 200 to 499 sows and 21% had 500 or more sows. The distribution of pig farm size nationwide in France was, respectively, 45, 36 and 19% in 2016 (Agreste Graph'Agri, 2019). Our sample thus roughly reflects French pig farm size.

A total of 114 stockpersons, including 39 interviewed farmers, filled out the questionnaire. Five farms did not send in any questionnaires. Only 98 questionnaires (including those from the 39 interviewed farmers) were complete and could be analyzed.

## Thematic analysis

This analysis leads to 52 monographs, which helped to identify the main husbandry practices implemented by farmers and the reasons behind them. These practices are given in Table 1.

### Farmer profiles

All the variables obtained from the interview were used to determine the farmer profiles using MCA followed by AHC, of which 31, focusing on HAR, were considered as active variables. All other variables obtained from the interview and from the other part of the survey were considered as supplementary variables. The MCA identified three clusters (farmer "profile"), with 14 axes. All significant active variables are listed in Table 2. All significant qualitative supplementary variables, significant quantitative supplementary variables and non-significant qualitative variables used for the analysis are given in Supplementary Material, respectively, in Tables S1-S3.

<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

Main husbandry practices implemented by pig farmers and the reasons for their implementation identified during a face-to-face semi-structured interview and analyzed using a thematic analysis (N = 52 farmers).

<table><thead><tr><th>Task</th><th>Husbandry practice</th><th>Reason why this practice is implemented</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sow vaccination</td><td><ul><li>Use of a syringe needle extension</li><li>Administration of vaccines during feeding</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Improves sow comfort and health</li><li>Makes work easier and less dangerous</li><li>Improves the relationship with sows</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Moving pigs</td><td><ul><li>Use of appropriate tools (boards, paddles, plastics bags)</li><li>Organization of the moving route</li><li>Letting the animals move at their own pace</li><li>Use of food to attract animals</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Avoids rushing the pigs</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Sorting fattening pigs</td><td><ul><li>Presence of at least two stockpersons, if possible</li><li>Use of boards</li><li>Making the pigs turn around in the opposite direction</li><li>Pulling out more pigs than needed and then putting the surplus back into the pen</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Makes work easier</li><li>Saves time</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Gilt socialization</td><td><ul><li>Socializing animals with food or fruit juice</li><li>Having regular physical contact with the gilts</li><li>Spending more time in the pen with animals</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Creates a relationship with gilts</li><li>Facilitates future work with gilts</li><li>Limits gilt stress</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Farrowing</td><td><ul><li>Continuously monitoring farrowing</li><li>Giving jute sacks to sows</li><li>Massaging the udders</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Reduces piglet crushing</li><li>Calms the sow</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Piglet care</td><td><ul><li>Use of equipment to facilitate work (trolleys, containers, chairs, etc.)</li><li>Ban of certain procedures (teeth grinding, castration etc.)</li><li>Piping music into buildings</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Makes work easier by reducing long and repetitive procedures on piglets</li><li>Reduces stressful procedures and improves piglet welfare</li><li>Calms the pigs and makes them less sensitive to sudden noises</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>General</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
responses; farm was a random effect and the sow HAR score was used as a covariable.

The relationship between the individual productivity results of sows and the profile of farmer was analyzed using a mixed model, introducing the sow HAR score, sow parity and their interaction as well as sow breed, farmer profile and on-farm variability in responses as fixed effects and farm as random effects. For this analysis, sow HAR scores of 0 to 2 and 3 to 4 of were pooled together; parities 2 and 3, 4 and 5 and 6 and above were also pooled together.

Productivity and behavior tests of growers were analyzed using a linear mixed model, introducing farm as a random effect and investigator, investigator clothing and farmer profile as fixed effects.

Data processing and analysis were carried out using RStudio for R software version 1.1.456 and its package nlme ("non-linear mixed effects") version 3.1-137.

To identify the most relevant questions from the questionnaire designed to discriminate the farmer profiles, three different prospective analyses were done on the data collected from the questionnaires. The first analysis consisted of constructing determination trees using the classification and regression tree (CART) method (Breiman et al., 2017) on the answers obtained from the questionnaire filled out by the interviewed farmers. Classification and regression tree is a statistical approach that can identify the best predictors of a profile among a list of variables, e.g. here, questions. The error rate of the tree was computed using the leave-one-out method. Classification and regression tree modeling was carried out using the statistical programme RStudio for R software and the packages Rpart (Therneau et al., 2019).

The second analysis considered all the answers from all the questionnaires (from interviewed farmers and from other stockpersons) and defined new farmer profiles using the same method described above (MCA followed by an AHC), with the same active variables. Farmers belonging to both typologies, the one obtained from the interview and the one obtained from the questionnaires, were compared. The third analysis was also a MCA followed by an AHC conducted on the variables obtained from the answers of all the questionnaires filled out by farmers and other stockpersons to identify the farmer profile. The on-farm variability in responses variable was included as the active variable in the analysis.

## Results

### Farm sample

The survey was conducted between April and July 2018. Among the 52 farmers surveyed, the farmers fell into the following typology-specialization pairs: multitask - managers (2), multitask - animal carers (13), specialized - managers (12), specialized - animal carers (11) and 14 were not characterized. The majority of the interviewed farmers were the owner of the farm (81%) and were men (71%). In 2016, the proportion of male farmers was 75% in France (Agreste Graph'Agri, 2019). The age distribution across the <35, 35-44, 45-54, 55-59 and >60-year-old age classes were, respectively, 10, 27, 35, 21 and 8%. The age distribution in the age classes of the whole French farmer population in 2016 was, respectively, 10, 18, 30, 19 and 14% (Agreste Graph'Agri, 2019). They had various education levels, ranging from standard agricultural education (17%) to an intermediate education level (64%) and a high education level (19%), whereas the percentage in the whole French farmer population in 2016 was, respectively, 36, 38 and 27% (Agreste Graph'Agri, 2019). Our sample is made up of farmers who are relatively younger and better trained than the French population of farmers.

Forty-two percentage of farms had <200 sows, 37% had 200 to 499 sows and 21% had 500 or more sows. The distribution of pig farm size nationwide in France was, respectively, 45, 36 and 19% in 2016 (Agreste Graph'Agri, 2019). Our sample thus roughly reflects French pig farm size.

A total of 114 stockpersons, including 39 interviewed farmers, filled out the questionnaire. Five farms did not send in any questionnaires. Only 98 questionnaires (including those from the 39 interviewed farmers) were complete and could be analyzed.

### Thematic analysis

This analysis leads to 52 monographs, which helped to identify the main husbandry practices implemented by farmers and the reasons behind them. These practices are given in Table 1.

### Farmer profiles

All the variables obtained from the interview were used to determine the farmer profiles using MCA followed by AHC, of which 31, focusing on HAR, were considered as active variables. All other variables obtained from the interview and from the other part of the survey were considered as supplementary variables. The MCA identified three clusters (farmer "profile"), with 14 axes. All significant active variables are listed in Table 2. All significant qualitative supplementary variables, significant quantitative supplementary variables and non-significant qualitative variables used for the analysis are given in Supplementary Material, respectively, in Tables S1-S3.

<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

Main husbandry practices implemented by pig farmers and the reasons for their implementation identified during a face-to-face semi-structured interview and analyzed using a thematic analysis (N = 52 farmers).

<table><thead><tr><th>Task</th><th>Husbandry practice</th><th>Reason why this practice is implemented</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sow vaccination</td><td><ul><li>Use of a syringe needle extension</li><li>Administration of vaccines during feeding</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Improves sow comfort and health</li><li>Makes work easier and less dangerous</li><li>Improves the relationship with sows</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Moving pigs</td><td><ul><li>Use of appropriate tools (boards, paddles, plastics bags)</li><li>Organization of the moving route</li><li>Letting the animals move at their own pace</li><li>Use of food to attract animals</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Avoids rushing the pigs</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Sorting fattening pigs</td><td><ul><li>Presence of at least two stockpersons, if possible</li><li>Use of boards</li><li>Making the pigs turn around in the opposite direction</li><li>Pulling out more pigs than needed and then putting the surplus back into the pen</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Makes work easier</li><li>Saves time</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Gilt socialization</td><td><ul><li>Socializing animals with food or fruit juice</li><li>Having regular physical contact with the gilts</li><li>Spending more time in the pen with animals</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Creates a relationship with gilts</li><li>Facilitates future work with gilts</li><li>Limits gilt stress</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Farrowing</td><td><ul><li>Continuously monitoring farrowing</li><li>Giving jute sacks to sows</li><li>Massaging the udders</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Reduces piglet crushing</li><li>Calms the sow</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Piglet care</td><td><ul><li>Use of equipment to facilitate work (trolleys, containers, chairs, etc.)</li><li>Ban of certain procedures (teeth grinding, castration etc.)</li><li>Piping music into buildings</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Makes work easier by reducing long and repetitive procedures on piglets</li><li>Reduces stressful procedures and improves piglet welfare</li><li>Calms the pigs and makes them less sensitive to sudden noises</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>General</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Significant active variables and their levels characterizing pig farmer profiles determined from the semi-structured interview (non-significant levels are given for information, in italic). N = 52 farmers (12 in Profile 1, 26 in Profile 2 and 14 in Profile 3). Analysis was done with a multiple correspondence analysis followed by ascendant hierarchical clustering. Significant variable means *P* < 0.05. The v-test measures the degree of representation of the level in the Profile (v-test > 0, level over-represented in the profile, v-test < 0, level under-represented in the profile). HAR: human-animal relationship.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variables</th><th rowspan="2">Levels</th><th rowspan="2">Number of farmers with the level</th><th colspan="3">Farmer profile</th><th rowspan="2">Percentage of farmers of the profile with this level</th><th rowspan="2">Percentage of farmers with the level in the profile</th><th rowspan="2">V-test</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="10"><strong>Work practices</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Gilt socialization</td><td>Yes</td><td>32</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>6</td><td></td><td>17</td><td>-3.5</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>20</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>50</td><td></td><td>83</td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>32</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>37</td><td></td><td>86</td><td>2.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Satisfied with group housing of</td><td>Yes</td><td>32</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>34</td><td></td><td>42</td><td>-2.8</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>20</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>75</td><td></td><td>58</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">gestating sows</td><td>Yes</td><td>32</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>44</td><td></td><td>100</td><td>3.6</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>20</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>-3.6</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Enters every sow pen daily or stay in the corridor</td><td>In the pen</td><td>28</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>39</td><td></td><td>79</td><td>2.1</td></tr><tr><td>In the corridor</td><td>24</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>12</td><td></td><td>21</td><td>-2.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Daily physical contact with the sows</td><td>Yes</td><td>29</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>41</td><td></td><td>86</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>23</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>9</td><td></td><td>14</td><td>-2.6</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Group housing of gestating sows allows better contact with animals</td><td>Yes</td><td>13</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>62</td><td></td><td>57</td><td>3.0</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>39</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>15</td><td></td><td>43</td><td>-3.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="10"><strong>Perception of the animal</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Technical skills are needed to be a good farmer</td><td>Yes</td><td>30</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>67</td><td></td><td>77</td><td>2.7</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>22</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Human behavior can be source of stress</td><td>Yes</td><td>20</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>70</td><td></td><td>54</td><td>2.2</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>32</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>37</td><td></td><td>46</td><td>-2.2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">How animal emotions are expressed</td><td>With anthropomorphism</td><td>10</td><td></td><td></td><td>60</td><td></td><td>43</td><td>2.4</td></tr><tr><td>Without anthropomorphism</td><td>42</td><td></td><td></td><td>19</td><td></td><td>57</td><td>-2.4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">What is a "good sow"</td><td>Mild behavior</td><td>24</td><td></td><td></td><td>46</td><td></td><td>79</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Good performance</td><td>28</td><td></td><td></td><td>11</td><td></td><td>21</td><td>-2.8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="10"><strong>Human-animal relationship</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Characterization of farmer relationships with farm animals</td><td>Professional</td><td>39</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>31</td><td></td><td>100</td><td>2.3</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional</td><td>13</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>0</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>-2.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Professional</td><td>Professional</td><td>39</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>62</td><td></td><td>92</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional</td><td>13</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>15</td><td></td><td>8</td><td>-2.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Professional</td><td>Professional</td><td>39</td><td></td><td></td><td>8</td><td></td><td>21</td><td>-5.1</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional</td><td>13</td><td></td><td></td><td>85</td><td></td><td>79</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Empathy towards animals</td><td>Yes</td><td>17</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>0</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>-2.9</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>35</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>34</td><td></td><td>100</td><td>2.9</td></tr><tr><td>YES</td><td>17</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>29</td><td></td><td>19</td><td>-2.0</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>35</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>60</td><td></td><td>81</td><td>2.0</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>17</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>71</td><td></td><td>86</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Human-animal relationship mentioned during the interview</td><td>No</td><td>41</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>7</td><td></td><td>25</td><td>-4.7</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>11</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>82</td><td></td><td>75</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>41</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>63</td><td></td><td>100</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">What impact does HAR have on the animals?</td><td>No impact</td><td>8</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>75</td><td></td><td>50</td><td>3.3</td></tr><tr><td>No impact</td><td>8</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>-3.1</td></tr><tr><td>On animal behavior</td><td>21</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>71</td><td></td><td>58</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Terms used to describe HARs</td><td>On animal productivity</td><td>23</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>10</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>70</td><td></td><td>58</td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>10</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>-2.2</td></tr><tr><td>Trust-respect</td><td>25</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>8</td><td></td><td>17</td><td>-2.4</td></tr><tr><td>Attachment</td><td>7</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>86</td><td></td><td>43</td><td>3.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Force used to coerce animals</td><td>Improves job</td><td>10</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Never</td><td>36</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>36</td><td></td><td>50</td><td>2.9</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>16</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>81</td><td></td><td>50</td><td>2.9</td></tr><tr><td>Never</td><td>36</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>38</td><td></td><td>100</td><td>3.1</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>16</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>-3.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Attitude when animals resist</td><td>Do nothing</td><td>7</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Use force</td><td>11</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>-2.3</td></tr><tr><td>Ask for help</td><td>7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Keep cool</td><td>27</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

**Profile 1**

The HAR is a secondary consideration for working with the farm animals ("secondary HAR"). This profile includes 12 farmers who have little interest in HAR. Compared with other farmer profiles, these farmers consider the contact they have with the pigs as a less pleasant aspect of their work. They do not like to pet them and do not implement any specific practices such as gilt socialization. They do not believe that pigs have

developed cognitive abilities or that the HAR can affect the animal, e.g. its health. Two-thirds of farmers in this profile have medium-sized farms with 200 to 500 sows, compared to one-third for the entire sample.

**Profile 2**

The HAR is useful for working with the farm animals ("useful HAR"). This profile includes half of the interviewed farmers (26 farmers).
<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Significant active variables and their levels characterizing pig farmer profiles determined from the semi-structured interview (non-significant levels are given for information, in italic). N = 52 farmers (12 in Profile 1, 26 in Profile 2 and 14 in Profile 3). Analysis was done with a multiple correspondence analysis followed by ascendant hierarchical clustering. Significant variable means *P* < 0.05. The v-test measures the degree of representation of the level in the Profile (v-test > 0, level over-represented in the profile, v-test < 0, level under-represented in the profile). HAR: human-animal relationship.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variables</th><th rowspan="2">Levels</th><th rowspan="2">Number of farmers with the level</th><th colspan="3">Farmer profile</th><th rowspan="2">Percentage of farmers of the profile with this level</th><th rowspan="2">Percentage of farmers with the level in the profile</th><th rowspan="2">V-test</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="10"><strong>Work practices</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Gilt socialization</td><td>Yes</td><td>32</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>6</td><td>17</td><td></td><td>-3.5</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>20</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>50</td><td>83</td><td></td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>32</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>37</td><td>86</td><td></td><td>2.1</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>No</td><td>20</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>10</td><td>14</td><td></td><td>-2.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Satisfied with group housing of</td><td>Yes</td><td>32</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>34</td><td>42</td><td></td><td>-2.8</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>20</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>75</td><td>58</td><td></td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">gestating sows</td><td>Yes</td><td>32</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>44</td><td>100</td><td></td><td>3.6</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>20</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>-3.6</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Enters every sow pen daily or stay in the corridor</td><td>In the pen</td><td>28</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>39</td><td>79</td><td></td><td>2.1</td></tr><tr><td>In the corridor</td><td>24</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>12</td><td>21</td><td></td><td>-2.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Daily physical contact with the sows</td><td>Yes</td><td>29</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>41</td><td>86</td><td></td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>23</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>9</td><td>14</td><td></td><td>-2.6</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Group housing of gestating sows allows better contact with animals</td><td>Yes</td><td>13</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>62</td><td>57</td><td></td><td>3.0</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>39</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>15</td><td>43</td><td></td><td>-3.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="10"><strong>Perception of the animal</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Technical skills are needed to be a good farmer</td><td>Yes</td><td>30</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>67</td><td>77</td><td></td><td>2.7</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>22</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Human behavior can be source of stress</td><td>Yes</td><td>20</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>70</td><td>54</td><td></td><td>2.2</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>32</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>37</td><td>46</td><td></td><td>-2.2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">How animal emotions are expressed</td><td>With anthropomorphism</td><td>10</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>60</td><td></td><td>2.4</td></tr><tr><td>Without anthropomorphism</td><td>42</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>19</td><td></td><td>-2.4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">What is a "good sow"</td><td>Mild behavior</td><td>24</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>46</td><td></td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Good performance</td><td>28</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>11</td><td></td><td>-2.8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="10"><strong>Human-animal relationship</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Characterization of farmer relationships with farm animals</td><td>Professional</td><td>39</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>31</td><td>100</td><td></td><td>2.3</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional</td><td>13</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>-2.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Professional</td><td>Professional</td><td>39</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>62</td><td>92</td><td></td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional</td><td>13</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>15</td><td>8</td><td></td><td>-2.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Professional</td><td>Professional</td><td>39</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>8</td><td></td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional</td><td>13</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>85</td><td></td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Empathy towards animals</td><td>Yes</td><td>17</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>-2.9</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>35</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>34</td><td>100</td><td></td><td>2.9</td></tr><tr><td>YES</td><td>17</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>29</td><td>19</td><td></td><td>-2.0</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>35</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>60</td><td>81</td><td></td><td>2.0</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>17</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>71</td><td>86</td><td></td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Human-animal relationship mentioned during the interview</td><td>No</td><td>35</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>6</td><td>14</td><td></td><td>-4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>41</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>7</td><td>25</td><td></td><td>-4.7</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>11</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>82</td><td>75</td><td></td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">What impact does HAR have on the animals?</td><td>No impact</td><td>8</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>75</td><td>50</td><td></td><td>3.3</td></tr><tr><td>No impact</td><td>8</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>-3.1</td></tr><tr><td>On animal behavior</td><td>21</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>71</td><td>58</td><td></td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Terms used to describe HARs</td><td>On animal productivity</td><td>23</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>10</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>70</td><td>58</td><td></td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>10</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>-2.2</td></tr><tr><td>Trust-respect</td><td>25</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>8</td><td>17</td><td></td><td>-2.4</td></tr><tr><td>Attachment</td><td>7</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>86</td><td>43</td><td></td><td>3.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Force used to coerce animals</td><td>Improves job</td><td>10</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Never</td><td>36</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>36</td><td>50</td><td></td><td>2.9</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>16</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>81</td><td>50</td><td></td><td>2.9</td></tr><tr><td>Never</td><td>36</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>38</td><td>100</td><td></td><td>3.1</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>16</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>-3.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Attitude when animals resist</td><td>Do nothing</td><td>7</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Use force</td><td>11</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>-2.3</td></tr><tr><td>Ask for help</td><td>7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Keep cool</td><td>27</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

**Profile 1**

The HAR is a secondary consideration for working with the farm animals ("secondary HAR"). This profile includes 12 farmers who have little interest in HAR. Compared with other farmer profiles, these farmers consider the contact they have with the pigs as a less pleasant aspect of their work. They do not like to pet them and do not implement any specific practices such as gilt socialization. They do not believe that pigs have

developed cognitive abilities or that the HAR can affect the animal, e.g. its health. Two-thirds of farmers in this profile have medium-sized farms with 200 to 500 sows, compared to one-third for the entire sample.

**Profile 2**

The HAR is useful for working with the farm animals ("useful HAR"). This profile includes half of the interviewed farmers (26 farmers).
Although relatively heterogeneous, this profile is characterized by an operational view of the HAR. Farmers with this profile believe that a good farmer relies mainly on good technical skills. Like Profile 1 farmers, they consider that their pigs are farm animals and do not express any attachment to them. They believe that human behavior can influence animal behavior and in particular can be a source of stress. Whereas 88% of investigated farms raise their pigs on slatted floors, all the farmers in this profile use this type of flooring.

### Profile 3

The HAR is central for working with the farm animals ("central HAR"). This profile includes 14 farmers who are convinced of the importance of the HAR and who implement specific practices to improve it, such as gilt socialization or daily contact with sows. These farmers enjoy all aspects of their work, including those that are not related to animals, such as working in the fields. They also like all forms of contact with the pigs (touching, petting, talking) and moving them around. They all like group housing systems for gestating sows, whereas Profile 2 farmers are divided on the issue. Profile 3 farmers consider that sows and pigs have enhanced cognitive and sensory abilities. The majority of them express attachment to at least some sows. They are convinced that the HAR has an impact on animal health. The farms in this category are relatively small (7 of them have fewer than 200 sows) and half comply with a welfare specification or the French high-quality specification "Label Rouge". The six farms of the sample that use straw bedding are in this group.

### Observation of farmers and sows

Ten of the 52 farmers were not observed, either because they did not have time to spend with their sows and make them get up, or because they did not want to. Among the 20 farmers who had positive contact with their sows (according to assessor appreciation, i.e. put their hand on the sow's back), 11 belonged to Profile 3, 6 to Profile 2 and one to Profile 1. Among the seven who had negative contacts (strong slaps or blows), all were from Profile 2. Comparisons between the farmer's and investigator's evaluation of sow health were quite similar for lameness, but diverged for abscesses in half the farms.

### Relationship between behavioral tests, farmer profile and technical data

A total of 1724 sows were tested, of which 266 were gilts. The proportions of sows scoring 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 (fearful to confident sows) were, respectively, 30, 13, 24, 19 and 14%. The mean farm score was $1.8 \pm 1.4$ and ranged from 0.4 to 3.2. Logistic regression identified sow housing, floor type, farmer profiles, gilt socialization, investigator and parity as the main explanatory factors of the sow HAR score, with differences between levels (Table 3). The sow HAR score was higher (more confident sows) for Profile 3 farmers (central HAR) and in farmers who practise gilt socialization. The scores were also higher for low-parity sows, for sows housed with electronic feeders and for straw-bedded sows. The sow HAR score also showed differences for three other variables. Gestation stage showed differences between levels, with late-gestating sows having a significantly lower mean score than mid- or early gestating sows (1.7 vs 1.9 and 2.0, respectively, $P < 0.05$). In farms where farmers report daily physical contact with animals, the sow HAR scores were higher than that in the other farms (1.97 vs 1.69 for others, $P < 0.05$). The sow HAR scores in groups with more than 20 sows were significantly higher than those in groups of 8 to 20 sows or <8 sows (2.23 vs 1.54 and 1.76, respectively, $P < 0.05$). There was no significant effect of pig breed, on-farm variability in responses, farmer gender and age, and number of sows on the farm on sow HAR scores.

Significant results on farm productivity and sow productivity are given in Table 4. At the farm level, Profile 3 farmers wean more piglets than those of the other profiles, for a similar total number of born

<caption>**Table 3**</caption>

Mean gilt and sow human-animal relationship (HAR) scores for variables identified by the logistic regression model and significant in a single-factor analysis (Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis test.

<table><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>Modalities</th><th>Number of farms</th><th>Number of sows</th><th>Sow HAR score</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Sow housing</td><td>electronic feeding station</td><td>14</td><td>434</td><td>2.2<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>trough feeding</td><td>20</td><td>592</td><td>1.8<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>group with feeding stalls</td><td>18</td><td>346</td><td>1.5<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Floor type</td><td>Slatted floor</td><td>46</td><td>1220</td><td>1.8<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Straw bedding</td><td>6</td><td>152</td><td>2.6<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Farmer profile</td><td>Profile 1</td><td>12</td><td>289</td><td>1.7<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Profile 2</td><td>26</td><td>713</td><td>1.4<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Profile 3</td><td>14</td><td>370</td><td>2.0<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Gilt socialization</td><td>Yes</td><td>32</td><td>887</td><td>2.0<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>20</td><td>485</td><td>1.6<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Investigator</td><td>A</td><td>23</td><td>692</td><td>2.0<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>24</td><td>680</td><td>1.7<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Sow parity</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>168</td><td>2.2<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>2 and 3</td><td></td><td>726</td><td>1.9<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>4 and 5</td><td></td><td>290</td><td>1.7<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>6 or more</td><td></td><td>158</td><td>1.6<sup>b</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

piglets. The rate of piglet death before weaning decreased when the average sow HAR score of the farm increased (more confident sows, $P < 0.01$). The weaning-to-gestation interval did not vary with farmer profiles or with the sow HAR score. The sow breed variable was also correlated with the total number of piglets born ($P < 0.05$). On-farm variability in responses in farm had no effect on the sow HAR score.

With regard to productivity of the sows HAR tested at each farm, the total number of piglets, the total number of piglets born alive and the number of weaned piglets were correlated with pig breed ($P < 0.01$ for each). These results were also correlated with parity and were higher for more confident sows. No effects were observed on the weaning-to-gestation interval. Sows of Profile 3 farmers (central HAR) weaned more piglets than those of Profile 1 or 2 farmers (secondary and useful HARs). The "on-farm variability in responses" variable had no effect on these results.

Behavioral tests on fattening pigs were done on 51 farms and 306 pens. Growers took $18.2 \pm 19.6$ s to touch the investigator (respectively, $13.5 \pm 17.6$ and $23.0 \pm 20.4$ for first and third pigs). There were no differences between farmer and investigator times. Farmer profile was not correlated with this result, but investigator clothing was: pigs touched

<caption>**Table 4**</caption>

Productivity of farm ($n = 52$) and of sow ($n = 1100$) according to farmer profiles (1, 2 or 3) and human-animal relationship (HAR) score. Farm productivity is based on data from the year before the survey. HAR sow scores range from 0 if the sow moves away as soon as the investigator walks to her ("fearful sow") to 4 if the sow never moves away ("confident sow").

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variable</th><th colspan="3">Farmer profile</th><th colspan="3">HAR sow score</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>RSD</th><th>0 to 2</th><th>3 to 4</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Farm productivity</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total number of piglets per litter</td><td>15.8</td><td>15.5</td><td>15.8</td><td>0.9</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Number of weaned piglets per litter</td><td>12.1<sup>a*</sup></td><td>12.1<sup>a*</sup></td><td>13.0<sup>b*</sup></td><td>0.9</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pre-weaning mortality</td><td>21.2</td><td>19.4</td><td>19.7</td><td>3.6</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Weaning-to-gestation interval</td><td>7.3</td><td>7.4</td><td>7.1</td><td>2.7</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Farrowing rate</td><td>95</td><td>96.4</td><td>96.7</td><td>4.0</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Sow productivity</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total number of piglets</td><td>16.5</td><td>16.8</td><td>16.4</td><td>3.5</td><td>16.3<sup>a**</sup></td><td>16.9<sup>b**</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Total number of piglets born alive</td><td>15.5</td><td>15.8</td><td>15.3</td><td>3.5</td><td>15.2<sup>a**</sup></td><td>15.9<sup>b**</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Number of weaned piglets</td><td>12.5<sup>a*</sup></td><td>12.5<sup>a*</sup></td><td>12.8<sup>b*</sup></td><td>1.6</td><td>12.4<sup>a**</sup></td><td>12.7<sup>b**</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote><sup>a,b</sup>Values within a column with different superscripts differ significantly at $P < 0.05$.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>a,b</sup>Values within a row with different superscripts differ significantly at $P < 0.05$ (*) and $P < 0.01$ (**).</footnote>
Although relatively heterogeneous, this profile is characterized by an operational view of the HAR. Farmers with this profile believe that a good farmer relies mainly on good technical skills. Like Profile 1 farmers, they consider that their pigs are farm animals and do not express any attachment to them. They believe that human behavior can influence animal behavior and in particular can be a source of stress. Whereas 88% of investigated farms raise their pigs on slatted floors, all the farmers in this profile use this type of flooring.

### Profile 3

The HAR is central for working with the farm animals ("central HAR"). This profile includes 14 farmers who are convinced of the importance of the HAR and who implement specific practices to improve it, such as gilt socialization or daily contact with sows. These farmers enjoy all aspects of their work, including those that are not related to animals, such as working in the fields. They also like all forms of contact with the pigs (touching, petting, talking) and moving them around. They all like group housing systems for gestating sows, whereas Profile 2 farmers are divided on the issue. Profile 3 farmers consider that sows and pigs have enhanced cognitive and sensory abilities. The majority of them express attachment to at least some sows. They are convinced that the HAR has an impact on animal health. The farms in this category are relatively small (7 of them have fewer than 200 sows) and half comply with a welfare specification or the French high-quality specification "Label Rouge". The six farms of the sample that use straw bedding are in this group.

### Observation of farmers and sows

Ten of the 52 farmers were not observed, either because they did not have time to spend with their sows and make them get up, or because they did not want to. Among the 20 farmers who had positive contact with their sows (according to assessor appreciation, i.e. put their hand on the sow's back), 11 belonged to Profile 3, 6 to Profile 2 and one to Profile 1. Among the seven who had negative contacts (strong slaps or blows), all were from Profile 2. Comparisons between the farmer's and investigator's evaluation of sow health were quite similar for lameness, but diverged for abscesses in half the farms.

### Relationship between behavioral tests, farmer profile and technical data

A total of 1724 sows were tested, of which 266 were gilts. The proportions of sows scoring 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 (fearful to confident sows) were, respectively, 30, 13, 24, 19 and 14%. The mean farm score was $1.8 \pm 1.4$ and ranged from 0.4 to 3.2. Logistic regression identified sow housing, floor type, farmer profiles, gilt socialization, investigator and parity as the main explanatory factors of the sow HAR score, with differences between levels (Table 3). The sow HAR score was higher (more confident sows) for Profile 3 farmers (central HAR) and in farmers who practise gilt socialization. The scores were also higher for low-parity sows, for sows housed with electronic feeders and for straw-bedded sows. The sow HAR score also showed differences for three other variables. Gestation stage showed differences between levels, with late-gestating sows having a significantly lower mean score than mid- or early gestating sows (1.7 vs 1.9 and 2.0, respectively, *P* < 0.05). In farms where farmers report daily physical contact with animals, the sow HAR scores were higher than that in the other farms (1.97 vs 1.69 for others, *P* < 0.05). The sow HAR scores in groups with more than 20 sows were significantly higher than those in groups of 8 to 20 sows or <8 sows (2.23 vs 1.54 and 1.76, respectively, *P* < 0.05). There was no significant effect of pig breed, on-farm variability in responses, farmer gender and age, and number of sows on the farm on sow HAR scores.

Significant results on farm productivity and sow productivity are given in Table 4. At the farm level, Profile 3 farmers wean more piglets than those of the other profiles, for a similar total number of born

<caption>**Table 3**</caption>

Mean gilt and sow human-animal relationship (HAR) scores for variables identified by the logistic regression model and significant in a single-factor analysis (Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis test.

<table><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>Modalities</th><th>Number of farms</th><th>Number of sows</th><th>Sow HAR score</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Sow housing</td><td>electronic feeding station</td><td>14</td><td>434</td><td>2.2<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>trough feeding</td><td>20</td><td>592</td><td>1.8<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>group with feeding stalls</td><td>18</td><td>346</td><td>1.5<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Floor type</td><td>Slatted floor</td><td>46</td><td>1220</td><td>1.8<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Straw bedding</td><td>6</td><td>152</td><td>2.6<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Farmer profile</td><td>Profile 1</td><td>12</td><td>289</td><td>1.7<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Profile 2</td><td>26</td><td>713</td><td>1.4<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Profile 3</td><td>14</td><td>370</td><td>2.0<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Gilt socialization</td><td>Yes</td><td>32</td><td>887</td><td>2.0<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>20</td><td>485</td><td>1.6<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Investigator</td><td>A</td><td>23</td><td>692</td><td>2.0<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>24</td><td>680</td><td>1.7<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Sow parity</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>168</td><td>2.2<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>2 and 3</td><td></td><td>726</td><td>1.9<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>4 and 5</td><td></td><td>290</td><td>1.7<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>6 or more</td><td></td><td>158</td><td>1.6<sup>b</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

piglets. The rate of piglet death before weaning decreased when the average sow HAR score of the farm increased (more confident sows, *P* < 0.01). The weaning-to-gestation interval did not vary with farmer profiles or with the sow HAR score. The sow breed variable was also correlated with the total number of piglets born (*P* < 0.05). On-farm variability in responses in farm had no effect on the sow HAR score.

With regard to productivity of the sows HAR tested at each farm, the total number of piglets, the total number of piglets born alive and the number of weaned piglets were correlated with pig breed (*P* < 0.01 for each). These results were also correlated with parity and were higher for more confident sows. No effects were observed on the weaning-to-gestation interval. Sows of Profile 3 farmers (central HAR) weaned more piglets than those of Profile 1 or 2 farmers (secondary and useful HARs). The "on-farm variability in responses" variable had no effect on these results.

Behavioral tests on fattening pigs were done on 51 farms and 306 pens. Growers took 18.2 ± 19.6 s to touch the investigator (respectively, 13.5 ± 17.6 and 23.0 ± 20.4 for first and third pigs). There were no differences between farmer and investigator times. Farmer profile was not correlated with this result, but investigator clothing was: pigs touched

<caption>**Table 4**</caption>

Productivity of farm (n = 52) and of sow (n = 1100) according to farmer profiles (1, 2 or 3) and human-animal relationship (HAR) score. Farm productivity is based on data from the year before the survey. HAR sow scores range from 0 if the sow moves away as soon as the investigator walks to her ("fearful sow") to 4 if the sow never moves away ("confident sow").

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variable</th><th colspan="3">Farmer profile</th><th rowspan="2">RSD</th><th colspan="2">HAR sow score</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>0 to 2</th><th>3 to 4</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Farm productivity</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total number of piglets per litter</td><td>15.8</td><td>15.5</td><td>15.8</td><td>0.9</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Number of weaned piglets per litter</td><td>12.1<sup>a*</sup></td><td>12.1<sup>a*</sup></td><td>13.0<sup>b*</sup></td><td>0.9</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pre-weaning mortality</td><td>21.2</td><td>19.4</td><td>19.7</td><td>3.6</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Weaning-to-gestation interval</td><td>7.3</td><td>7.4</td><td>7.1</td><td>2.7</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Farrowing rate</td><td>95</td><td>96.4</td><td>96.7</td><td>4.0</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Sow productivity</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total number of piglets</td><td>16.5</td><td>16.8</td><td>16.4</td><td>3.5</td><td>16.3<sup>a**</sup></td><td>16.9<sup>b**</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Total number of piglets born alive</td><td>15.5</td><td>15.8</td><td>15.3</td><td>3.5</td><td>15.2<sup>a**</sup></td><td>15.9<sup>b**</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Number of weaned piglets</td><td>12.5<sup>a*</sup></td><td>12.5<sup>a*</sup></td><td>12.8<sup>b*</sup></td><td>1.6</td><td>12.4<sup>a**</sup></td><td>12.7<sup>b**</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote><sup>a,b</sup>Values within a column with different superscripts differ significantly at *P* < 0.05.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>a,b</sup>Values within a row with different superscripts differ significantly at *P* < 0.05 (*) and *P* < 0.01 (**).</footnote>
the investigator within 16.8 ± 18.6 s when the investigator was wearing clothes from the farm and 23.4 ± 22.2 s when the investigator was wearing standard coverall for visitors. The three farmers who declared that they routinely enter the grower pens had the shortest times, < 4 s.

Grower productivity was recorded on only 33 farms. None of the results were correlated with farmer profile.

## Profile prediction value of the questionnaire

The first analysis on the answers of the 39 interviewed farmers using the CART method identified questions to help to predict the assignment of the farmer to one of the three profiles: "I like to touch my animals", "I like to work in the farrowing room", "Growers need less attention than other animals", "I like to work in the fields" and "I like new technologies". However, the leave-one-out error rate was 65%.

In the second analysis, three farmer clusters were identified with the 53 variables extracted from the questionnaires. Cluster 1 was composed of farmers who are in favor of positive animal practices, attribute cognitive abilities to animals, for whom the HAR has an impact on the farm animal or on the farmer and who qualify their HAR with sows as good. Cluster 2 included farmers with generally no (strong) opinion on the points mentioned above. Cluster 3 (only 2 farmers) included farmers who disagreed with (i.e. negative) the points mentioned above. Farmers from cluster 1 belonged to Profiles 2 – useful HAR (62%) and 3 – central HAR (38%). Farmers from cluster 2 belonged to Profile 1 – secondary HAR (78%).

The third analysis on the answers of all 98 respondents resulted in three groups, the third one comprising three farmers. The on-farm variability in responses had the four following levels: score 0 included 8 farms where there were fewer than 1.5 people working on the pig farm, score 1 was given to 11 farms where all the stockpersons belonged to the same group, score 2 was given to 11 farms where the farm workers did not belong to the same group and score 4 was attributed to 22 farms that could not be qualified, due to a lack of questionnaire from some farm workers.

## Discussion

The characteristics of our sample differed slightly from those of the general French pig farmer population: our farmers were younger and better educated than the typical French pig farmer. The sample was not equally distributed across the different farmer typologies ("animal carer or manager") and level of specialization ("general or specialized"). However, farmers were not selected on the basis of being a representative sample, but to provide a variety of farmer types; this goal was met because we were able to identify different farmer profiles.

The sow HAR test we used had already been validated for its repeatability and usefulness in measuring animals' fear of humans (Powell et al., 2016; Welfare Quality Consortium, 2009). In our various analyses, an investigator effect was still present, although we attempted to limit it by having the investigators follow common training sessions and carrying out joint observation of several farms. Nevertheless, the observed differences were small and may be partially due to differences between the two sub-samples surveyed.

The first objective of this survey was to investigate the HAR in a diversity of pig farming situations and to evaluate the possible correlation between farmers' attitudes, husbandry practices, animal health, welfare and productivity. The first step was to identify husbandry practices. The qualitative thematic analysis made it possible to identify husbandry practices in accordance with positive HAR. Some of them, such as gilt socialization, daily physical contact with sows and observation of sows from the inside of the pen, are characteristics of Profile 3 (central HAR). These practices, mentioned by several farmers of our sample, can be taught to other farmers during training sessions or through professional media. The thematic analysis also identified a variety of attitudes towards pigs, the farmer's profession and the HAR in accordance

with those described by Kling-Eveillard et al. (2020). Particularly, the "good animal", defined as an "invisible animal" that does not trigger alerts because it poses no problems, was also described by some farmers in our sample.

According to the semi-structured interviews and to the other data collected, we defined three profiles similar to those defined by Kling-Eveillard et al. (2020). In that study on three animal production types (dairy cattle, gestating sows and broiler chickens), sow farmers are distributed among three profiles. In our study, Profile 1 (secondary HAR) is similar to their Profile A: farmers who consider that the HAR does not have a role to play on their farm and who do not enjoy either touching or talking to their animals. Our Profile 3 (central HAR) is similar to their Profile C: farmers who place their farm animals at the heart of their farm business and who associate a good HAR with an absence of fear of humans on the part of the animals. Our Profile 2 (useful HAR) corresponds to their Profile B to a lesser degree: farmers who associate a good HAR with animal welfare. However, this was the most difficult category to characterize, with fewer significant variables in the interview and any missing answers or non-committal responses to many questions in the questionnaire. Our Profile 3 also matched the first superordinate dimension in a study on 193 Scottish sheep and pig farmers (Austin et al., 2005). This dimension corresponds to a welfare-oriented approach. Our Profiles 2 and 3 matched the second dimension corresponding to a business-oriented approach. This last dichotomy is also described in a study on cattle, sheep, pig and poultry farmers (Porcher et al., 2004): friendly relationships vs power relationships with farm animals.

The profiles also illustrate the dispositional factors mentioned in the Theory of Reasoned Action, as, for instance, the farmers' engagement in quality scheme or the belief that the HAR does not have a role to play on their farm.

Farmers engaged in the strictest quality schemes were proportionally more present in Profile 3 (central HAR), although this profile is associated with diverse production systems. Bock and Van Huik (2007) indicate that these farmers with quality schemes define animal welfare as providing natural living conditions for the animals. Our results cannot confirm or infirm that conclusion. Future surveys including organic farms may provide a better opportunity to verify this.

Analyses of animal welfare, health and productivity data of our sample show that the number of weaned piglets per litter is enhanced for farmers for whom HAR is central to their approach to pig farming (Profile 3) and the total number of piglets born and weaned is higher for confident sows. More confident sows are housed on farms with farmers for whom HAR is central (Profile 3) and who practice gilt socialization. These results confirm the bond already illustrated in studies and literature reviews between the nature of human attitudes towards animals (positive, neutral, negative) and its relationship with the degree of animals' fear of humans (fearful or confident) and animal productivity (Seabrook, 1984; Hemsworth et al., 1989; Marchant Forde, 2002; Lensink et al., 2009; Kauppinen et al., 2012; Jääskeläinen et al., 2014; Horback and Parsons, 2016). The more positive the interactions between farmers and their animals are, the more confident the animals are and the better their productivity is. For sows in particular (Prunier and Tallet, 2015), the quality of sow-human interactions may influence reproductive performance via chronic stress — which is detrimental to the reproductive axis — difficulties for farmers to efficiently perform husbandry tasks and nervousness of the sows who can crush or savage piglets. In our results, other variables, such as electronic feeders, larger groups or straw bedding, were also correlated with more confident sows. These husbandry practices imply a better HAR because farmers enter the pens more often to check on food distribution or bedding/litter, which can be considered as positive or neutral interaction with animals (Kling-Eveillard et al., 2020). However, some welfare indicators could be better taken into account, such as the presence of abscesses which were poorly reported by farmers from all profiles in our study. This last observation shows that farmers need to be educated on
the investigator within 16.8 ± 18.6 s when the investigator was wearing clothes from the farm and 23.4 ± 22.2 s when the investigator was wearing standard coverall for visitors. The three farmers who declared that they routinely enter the grower pens had the shortest times, <4 s.

Grower productivity was recorded on only 33 farms. None of the results were correlated with farmer profile.

## Profile prediction value of the questionnaire

The first analysis on the answers of the 39 interviewed farmers using the CART method identified questions to help to predict the assignment of the farmer to one of the three profiles: "I like to touch my animals", "I like to work in the farrowing room", "Growers need less attention than other animals", "I like to work in the fields" and "I like new technologies". However, the leave-one-out error rate was 65%.

In the second analysis, three farmer clusters were identified with the 53 variables extracted from the questionnaires. Cluster 1 was composed of farmers who are in favor of positive animal practices, attribute cognitive abilities to animals, for whom the HAR has an impact on the farm animal or on the farmer and who qualify their HAR with sows as good. Cluster 2 included farmers with generally no (strong) opinion on the points mentioned above. Cluster 3 (only 2 farmers) included farmers who disagreed with (i.e. negative) the points mentioned above. Farmers from cluster 1 belonged to Profiles 2 – useful HAR (62%) and 3 – central HAR (38%). Farmers from cluster 2 belonged to Profile 1 – secondary HAR (78%).

The third analysis on the answers of all 98 respondents resulted in three groups, the third one comprising three farmers. The on-farm variability in responses had the four following levels: score 0 included 8 farms where there were fewer than 1.5 people working on the pig farm, score 1 was given to 11 farms where all the stockpersons belonged to the same group, score 2 was given to 11 farms where the farm workers did not belong to the same group and score 4 was attributed to 22 farms that could not be qualified, due to a lack of questionnaire from some farm workers.

## Discussion

The characteristics of our sample differed slightly from those of the general French pig farmer population: our farmers were younger and better educated than the typical French pig farmer. The sample was not equally distributed across the different farmer typologies ("animal carer or manager") and level of specialization ("general or specialized"). However, farmers were not selected on the basis of being a representative sample, but to provide a variety of farmer types; this goal was met because we were able to identify different farmer profiles.

The sow HAR test we used had already been validated for its repeatability and usefulness in measuring animals' fear of humans (Powell et al., 2016; Welfare Quality Consortium, 2009). In our various analyses, an investigator effect was still present, although we attempted to limit it by having the investigators follow common training sessions and carrying out joint observation of several farms. Nevertheless, the observed differences were small and may be partially due to differences between the two sub-samples surveyed.

The first objective of this survey was to investigate the HAR in a diversity of pig farming situations and to evaluate the possible correlation between farmers' attitudes, husbandry practices, animal health, welfare and productivity. The first step was to identify husbandry practices. The qualitative thematic analysis made it possible to identify husbandry practices in accordance with positive HAR. Some of them, such as gilt socialization, daily physical contact with sows and observation of sows from the inside of the pen, are characteristics of Profile 3 (central HAR). These practices, mentioned by several farmers of our sample, can be taught to other farmers during training sessions or through professional media. The thematic analysis also identified a variety of attitudes towards pigs, the farmer's profession and the HAR in accordance

with those described by Kling-Eveillard et al. (2020). Particularly, the "good animal", defined as an "invisible animal" that does not trigger alerts because it poses no problems, was also described by some farmers in our sample.

According to the semi-structured interviews and to the other data collected, we defined three profiles similar to those defined by Kling-Eveillard et al. (2020). In that study on three animal production types (dairy cattle, gestating sows and broiler chickens), sow farmers are distributed among three profiles. In our study, Profile 1 (secondary HAR) is similar to their Profile A: farmers who consider that the HAR does not have a role to play on their farm and who do not enjoy either touching or talking to their animals. Our Profile 3 (central HAR) is similar to their Profile C: farmers who place their farm animals at the heart of their farm business and who associate a good HAR with an absence of fear of humans on the part of the animals. Our Profile 2 (useful HAR) corresponds to their Profile B to a lesser degree: farmers who associate a good HAR with animal welfare. However, this was the most difficult category to characterize, with fewer significant variables in the interview and any missing answers or non-committal responses to many questions in the questionnaire. Our Profile 3 also matched the first superordinate dimension in a study on 193 Scottish sheep and pig farmers (Austin et al., 2005). This dimension corresponds to a welfare-oriented approach. Our Profiles 2 and 3 matched the second dimension corresponding to a business-oriented approach. This last dichotomy is also described in a study on cattle, sheep, pig and poultry farmers (Porcher et al., 2004): friendly relationships vs power relationships with farm animals.

The profiles also illustrate the dispositional factors mentioned in the Theory of Reasoned Action, as, for instance, the farmers' engagement in quality scheme or the belief that the HAR does not have a role to play on their farm.

Farmers engaged in the strictest quality schemes were proportionally more present in Profile 3 (central HAR), although this profile is associated with diverse production systems. Bock and Van Huik (2007) indicate that these farmers with quality schemes define animal welfare as providing natural living conditions for the animals. Our results cannot confirm or infirm that conclusion. Future surveys including organic farms may provide a better opportunity to verify this.

Analyses of animal welfare, health and productivity data of our sample show that the number of weaned piglets per litter is enhanced for farmers for whom HAR is central to their approach to pig farming (Profile 3) and the total number of piglets born and weaned is higher for confident sows. More confident sows are housed on farms with farmers for whom HAR is central (Profile 3) and who practice gilt socialization. These results confirm the bond already illustrated in studies and literature reviews between the nature of human attitudes towards animals (positive, neutral, negative) and its relationship with the degree of animals' fear of humans (fearful or confident) and animal productivity (Seabrook, 1984; Hemsworth et al., 1989; Marchant Forde, 2002; Lensink et al., 2009; Kauppinen et al., 2012; Jääskeläinen et al., 2014; Horback and Parsons, 2016). The more positive the interactions between farmers and their animals are, the more confident the animals are and the better their productivity is. For sows in particular (Prunier and Tallet, 2015), the quality of sow-human interactions may influence reproductive performance via chronic stress — which is detrimental to the reproductive axis — difficulties for farmers to efficiently perform husbandry tasks and nervousness of the sows who can crush or savage piglets. In our results, other variables, such as electronic feeders, larger groups or straw bedding, were also correlated with more confident sows. These husbandry practices imply a better HAR because farmers enter the pens more often to check on food distribution or bedding/litter, which can be considered as positive or neutral interaction with animals (Kling-Eveillard et al., 2020). However, some welfare indicators could be better taken into account, such as the presence of abscesses which were poorly reported by farmers from all profiles in our study. This last observation shows that farmers need to be educated on
abscesses recognition and/or on the fact that abscesses can be painful for animals.

Low-parity sows are more confident than older sows. Two tendencies are described in literature: in some cases, sows react less to humans with advancing parity, perhaps because they learn that human contacts are positive, and in other cases, higher parity is associated with more fearfulness (Prunier and Tallet, 2015). In our results, sows became more fearful with parity, regardless of the farmer profile (data not shown). After gilt socialization, a good HAR should be routinely implemented with sows, to compensate for aversive unavoidable husbandry practices as veterinary treatments (Waiblinger et al., 2006) which can be negatively perceived by the animal because of the restraint or the pain they cause. We also observed that early-gestating sows were slightly more confident than late-gestating sows. We could have expected a different result, with late-gestating sows tending to move less in general, and in particular when the assessor comes close to her, because most of their energy is used for gestation, and then having higher HAR score. Contacts with the farmer differ between the beginning and the end of the gestation period, from oestrus detection and insemination towards vaccinations at the end of this stage. Even if we took into account the fact that no interventions occurred on the sows in the days before the test, the risk of having an injection some weeks before the test is higher in the late than in the early gestation, resulting in less confident sows.

Our study on HAR in pig farming also highlights the relationship between the farmer's attitude, assigned to one of three profiles, and the husbandry practices he/she implements: in our analysis, positive attitudes and practices generally characterize Profile 3 (central HAR). However, farmers with other profiles also implement positive practices, although they do not significantly characterize these profiles. These positive attitudes and practices should be taught to stockpersons, students or more experienced stockpersons, through cognitive-behavioral training programmes, as already demonstrated in pigs (Hemsworth et al., 1994; Coleman et al., 2000) and in others species (Hemsworth et al., 2002; Windschnurer et al., 2009), to improve the HAR and thus animal welfare through a virtuous circle (Boivin et al., 2012) and also enhance job-related characteristics, such as job satisfaction, work motivation and commitment, thereby potentially improve the stockperson's job performance (Coleman and Hemsworth, 2014).

Genetics, accounted for using sow breed as a proxy, was not correlated with sow behavior in human approach tests, but the numbers of sows in different breeds was not evenly represented across our farms. We obtained individual variability in the reactions of sows on the same farm, ranging from very fearful to confident. These results confirm the individual personality of each animal (Boissy and Erhard, 2014; Horback and Parsons, 2016; O'Malley et al., 2019). It can be assumed that the HAR score reflects individual personality of the sow because on a given farm, each animal may have had pleasant or unpleasant emotions due to previous positive or negative interactions with human, such as a pleasant farmer's petting or a painful veterinary treatment, and this could influence individual HAR scores (Waiblinger et al., 2006).

Contrary to findings from other studies (Porcher et al., 2004), there was no correlation between the gender and age of the farmer, the number of sows on the farm and the sow HAR scores. Today, two decades after Porcher et al., 2004 study, male and female farmers have the same level of knowledge and in the last 20 years, initial training and continuous professional development on animal welfare has greatly increased, meaning that young and more experienced farmers now generally have the same knowledge base. Moreover, our sample of farms was not selected to be a representative sample of the pig farmer population (our farmers are younger and better educated than the typical French pig farmer), and it is not possible to conclude on these results.

The on-farm mean sow HAR scores were not correlated with farm size: they did not differ between farms with fewer than 200 sows or with more than 500 sows. The lack of obvious correlation between animal welfare and farm size has been mentioned in previous studies on

livestock species (Robbins et al., 2016) or for pigs (Meyer-Hamme et al., 2018). Similarly, another study showed that farmers' attitude and behavior do not depend on the degree of intensification of production (Hemsworth, 2007).

HAR scores were lower in smaller groups of sows. It can be supposed that largest groups of animals require the farmer entering the pens to check animals and equipment. Each entry in the pen increases the familiarity with the farmer and thus increases their confidence, if the farmer's behavior is appropriate. Even if we adapted the test to the pen size, it can be supposed that the results of the HAR test are influenced by the pen size.

In growers, our results on the reactivity of animal to the investigator's clothes confirm previous findings (Koba and Tanida, 1999) on miniature pigs and the lack of observer effect in a human approach test (Mieloch et al., 2020). We did not observe any differences in farm productivity regarding fatteners. A previous study (Wang et al., 2020) found that gentle handling had little effect on pig productivity, although it enhances the relationship between handlers and handled pigs.

The second objective of our study was to find a way to rapidly identify farmer profiles, to better adapt the course content of training sessions. The paper questionnaire that aimed to quickly identify the same farmer profiles did not meet its goal. The predictive values of the questions were not robust enough to assign a profile to a farmer. Bad predictive values of the trees may be due to an insufficient number of observations for one or more response levels. In addition, the questions may not have been sufficiently specific, or the responses given by stockpersons are more non-committal in less nuanced profiles than the interviews. However, for this study, the questionnaires gave additional information on farmers, providing additional variables that supplemented the interview and helped to refine profile definition. Within the RHAPORC project, the rapid identification of farmer profiles aimed to help training staff to better adapt their course content to the farmer trainees. Another approach has since been developed to select and define 12 questions based on the significant variables, to stimulate discussion at the beginning of training sessions and identify what information to provide and focus on.

To conclude, our results confirm the key role that farmer attitudes and perception of farm animals have on farming practices, animal welfare and productivity. The farmers who have more confident animals and better productivity are those who give the most importance to the animal in their profession, express the most pleasure in working with them and convey empathy for them. Most of them report daily physical contact with their sows. The results obtained in this study provide scientific evidence useful for designing educational degree courses or continuous professional development training courses planned in the RHAPORC project.

## Supplementary materials

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2020.100103.

## Ethics approval

Not applicable.

## Data and model availability statement

None of the data were deposited in an official repository. The data are available upon request.

## Author ORCIDs

Françoise Pol: 0000-0003-1696-8959.
abscesses recognition and/or on the fact that abscesses can be painful for animals.

Low-parity sows are more confident than older sows. Two tendencies are described in literature: in some cases, sows react less to humans with advancing parity, perhaps because they learn that human contacts are positive, and in other cases, higher parity is associated with more fearfulness (Prunier and Tallet, 2015). In our results, sows became more fearful with parity, regardless of the farmer profile (data not shown). After gilt socialization, a good HAR should be routinely implemented with sows, to compensate for aversive unavoidable husbandry practices as veterinary treatments (Waiblinger et al., 2006) which can be negatively perceived by the animal because of the restraint or the pain they cause. We also observed that early-gestating sows were slightly more confident than late-gestating sows. We could have expected a different result, with late-gestating sows tending to move less in general, and in particular when the assessor comes close to her, because most of their energy is used for gestation, and then having higher HAR score. Contacts with the farmer differ between the beginning and the end of the gestation period, from oestrus detection and insemination towards vaccinations at the end of this stage. Even if we took into account the fact that no interventions occurred on the sows in the days before the test, the risk of having an injection some weeks before the test is higher in the late than in the early gestation, resulting in less confident sows.

Our study on HAR in pig farming also highlights the relationship between the farmer's attitude, assigned to one of three profiles, and the husbandry practices he/she implements: in our analysis, positive attitudes and practices generally characterize Profile 3 (central HAR). However, farmers with other profiles also implement positive practices, although they do not significantly characterize these profiles. These positive attitudes and practices should be taught to stockpersons, students or more experienced stockpersons, through cognitive-behavioral training programmes, as already demonstrated in pigs (Hemsworth et al., 1994; Coleman et al., 2000) and in others species (Hemsworth et al., 2002; Windschnurer et al., 2009), to improve the HAR and thus animal welfare through a virtuous circle (Boivin et al., 2012) and also enhance job-related characteristics, such as job satisfaction, work motivation and commitment, thereby potentially improve the stockperson's job performance (Coleman and Hemsworth, 2014).

Genetics, accounted for using sow breed as a proxy, was not correlated with sow behavior in human approach tests, but the numbers of sows in different breeds was not evenly represented across our farms. We obtained individual variability in the reactions of sows on the same farm, ranging from very fearful to confident. These results confirm the individual personality of each animal (Boissy and Erhard, 2014; Horback and Parsons, 2016; O'Malley et al., 2019). It can be assumed that the HAR score reflects individual personality of the sow because on a given farm, each animal may have had pleasant or unpleasant emotions due to previous positive or negative interactions with human, such as a pleasant farmer's petting or a painful veterinary treatment, and this could influence individual HAR scores (Waiblinger et al., 2006).

Contrary to findings from other studies (Porcher et al., 2004), there was no correlation between the gender and age of the farmer, the number of sows on the farm and the sow HAR scores. Today, two decades after Porcher et al., 2004 study, male and female farmers have the same level of knowledge and in the last 20 years, initial training and continuous professional development on animal welfare has greatly increased, meaning that young and more experienced farmers now generally have the same knowledge base. Moreover, our sample of farms was not selected to be a representative sample of the pig farmer population (our farmers are younger and better educated than the typical French pig farmer), and it is not possible to conclude on these results.

The on-farm mean sow HAR scores were not correlated with farm size: they did not differ between farms with fewer than 200 sows or with more than 500 sows. The lack of obvious correlation between animal welfare and farm size has been mentioned in previous studies on

livestock species (Robbins et al., 2016) or for pigs (Meyer-Hamme et al., 2018). Similarly, another study showed that farmers' attitude and behavior do not depend on the degree of intensification of production (Hemsworth, 2007).

HAR scores were lower in smaller groups of sows. It can be supposed that largest groups of animals require the farmer entering the pens to check animals and equipment. Each entry in the pen increases the familiarity with the farmer and thus increases their confidence, if the farmer's behavior is appropriate. Even if we adapted the test to the pen size, it can be supposed that the results of the HAR test are influenced by the pen size.

In growers, our results on the reactivity of animal to the investigator's clothes confirm previous findings (Koba and Tanida, 1999) on miniature pigs and the lack of observer effect in a human approach test (Mieloch et al., 2020). We did not observe any differences in farm productivity regarding fatteners. A previous study (Wang et al., 2020) found that gentle handling had little effect on pig productivity, although it enhances the relationship between handlers and handled pigs.

The second objective of our study was to find a way to rapidly identify farmer profiles, to better adapt the course content of training sessions. The paper questionnaire that aimed to quickly identify the same farmer profiles did not meet its goal. The predictive values of the questions were not robust enough to assign a profile to a farmer. Bad predictive values of the trees may be due to an insufficient number of observations for one or more response levels. In addition, the questions may not have been sufficiently specific, or the responses given by stockpersons are more non-committal in less nuanced profiles than the interviews. However, for this study, the questionnaires gave additional information on farmers, providing additional variables that supplemented the interview and helped to refine profile definition. Within the RHAPORC project, the rapid identification of farmer profiles aimed to help training staff to better adapt their course content to the farmer trainees. Another approach has since been developed to select and define 12 questions based on the significant variables, to stimulate discussion at the beginning of training sessions and identify what information to provide and focus on.

To conclude, our results confirm the key role that farmer attitudes and perception of farm animals have on farming practices, animal welfare and productivity. The farmers who have more confident animals and better productivity are those who give the most importance to the animal in their profession, express the most pleasure in working with them and convey empathy for them. Most of them report daily physical contact with their sows. The results obtained in this study provide scientific evidence useful for designing educational degree courses or continuous professional development training courses planned in the RHAPORC project.

## Supplementary materials

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2020.100103.

## Ethics approval

Not applicable.

## Data and model availability statement

None of the data were deposited in an official repository. The data are available upon request.

## Author ORCIDs

Françoise Pol: 0000-0003-1696-8959.
## Author contributions

F. Pol: Conceptualization, methodology, validation, writing – original draft, supervision and funding acquisition. F. Kling-Eveillard: Conceptualization, methodology, validation, writing – review & editing and supervision. F. Champigneulle: Software, formal analysis, investigation and data curation. E. Fresnay: Software, formal analysis, investigation and data curation. M. Ducrocq: Software and formal analysis. V. Courboulay: Conceptualization, methodology, validation, writing – review & editing, supervision and funding acquisition.

## Declaration of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

## Acknowledgements

This study was carried out with financial support from the French CASDAR (5620). The authors thank the farmers and stockpersons who participated in the survey. They thank Aurore Philibert, Institut de l'Élevage - Idele, and Adeline Huneau, ANSES, for their contribution to the statistical analyses.

## Financial support statement

This work was supported by the CASDAR programme of the French Ministry of Agriculture (grant number 5620).

## References

* Agreste Graph "Agri, 2019. Population agricole, formation et recherche. Retrieved on 3 October 2020, from https://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/agreste-web/disaron/GraFralntegral/detail/.

* Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Pren-tice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.

* Albarracín, D., Zanna, M.P., Johnson, B.T., Kumkale, G.T., 2005. Attitudes: Introduction and Scope. In: Albarracín, D., Johnson, B.T., Zanna, M.P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes. Psychology Press, New York, NY, USA, pp. 3–19.

* Austin, E.J., Deary, I.J., Edwards-Jones, G., Arey, D., 2005. Attitudes to farm animal welfare: Factor structure and personality correlates in farmers and agriculture students. Journal of Individual Differences 26, 107–120.

* Bock, B.B., Van Huik, M.M., 2007. Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 109, 931–944.

* Boissy, A., 1995. Fear and fearfulness in animals. Quarterly Review of Biology 70, 165–191.

* Boissy, A., Erhard, H.W., 2014. How studying interactions between animal emotions, cognition, and personality can contribute to improve farm animal welfare. In: Grandin, T., Deesing, M.J. (Eds.), Genetics and the behavior of domestic animals, 2nd edition. Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 81–113.

* Boivin, X., Bensoussan, S., L'Hotellier, N., Bignon, L., Brives, H., Brule, A., Godet, J., Grannec, M.L., Hausberger, M., Kling-Eveillard, F., Tallet, C., Courboulay, V., 2012. Humans and livestock animals at work: toward a multidisciplinary approach of relational practices. Productions Animales 25, 159–168.

* Breiman, L., Friedman, J.H., Olshen, R.A., Stone, C.J., 2017. Classification and regression trees. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, USA.

* Burton, R.J.F., Peoples, S., Cooper, M.H., 2012. Building 'cowshed cultures': a cultural perspective on the promotion of stockmanship and animal welfare on dairy farms. Journal of Rural Studies 28, 174–187.

* Coleman, G.J., Hemsworth, L.M., 2014. Training to improve stockperson beliefs and behaviour towards livestock enhances welfare and productivity. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l'OIE 33, 131–137.

* Coleman, G.J., Hay, M., Hemsworth, P.H., Cox, M., 2000. Modifying stockperson attitudes and behaviour towards pigs at a large commercial farm. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66, 11–20.

* Courboulay, V., Foubert, C., 2007. Testing different methods to evaluate pig welfare on farm. Animal Welfare 16, 193–196.

* Courboulay, V., Meunier-Salaün, M.C., Edwards, S.A., Guy, J.H., Scott, K., 2009. Human-animal relationships: validation of measures on fattening pigs. In: Forkman, B., Keeling, L. (Eds.), Welfare quality report N° 10, assessment of animal welfare measures for sows, piglets and fattening pigs. Cardiff University, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 177–184.

* Dockès, A.C., Kling-Eveillard, F., 2006. Farmers' and advisers' representations of animals and animal welfare. Livestock Science 103, 243–249.

* Dockès, A.C., Kling-Eveillard, F., 2007. Livestock farmers' perception of animals and animal welfare. Productions Animales 20, 23–28.

* European Union Council, 2009. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of the European Communities 47, 5–13.

* Gonyou, H.W., Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., 1986. Effects of frequent interactions with humans on growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16, 269–278.

* Hemsworth, P.H., 2003. Human-animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 185–198.

* Hemsworth, P.H., 2007. Ethical stockmanship. Australian Veterinary Journal 85, 194–200.

* Hemsworth, P.H., Coleman, G.J., 2011. Human-Livestock interactions: the stockperson and the productivity and welfare of farmed animals, 2nd Edition. CAB International, Waldingford, UK.

* Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Coleman, G.J., Hansen, C., 1989. 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 23, 301–314.

* Hemsworth, P.H., Coleman, G.J., Barnett, J.L., 1994. Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 349–362.

* Hemsworth, P.H., Coleman, G.J., Barnett, J.L., Borg, S., Dowling, S., 2002. The effects of cognitive behavioural intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80, 68–78.

* Hemsworth, P.H., Sherwen, S.L., Coleman, G.J., 2018. Human contact. In: Appleby, M.C., Olsson, I.A.S., Galindo, F. (Eds.), Animal welfare, 3rd edition. CAB International, Oxon, UK, pp. 294–314.

* Horback, K.M., Parsons, T.D., 2016. Temporal stability of personality traits in group-housed gestating sows. Animal 10, 1351–1359.

* Jääskeläinen, T., Kauppinen, T., Vesala, K.M., Valros, A., 2014. Relationships between pig welfare, productivity and farmer disposition. Animal Welfare 23, 435–443.

* Kauppinen, T., Vesala, K.M., Valros, A., 2012. Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livestock Science 143, 142–150.

* Kling-Eveillard, F., Allain, C., Boivin, X., Courboulay, V., Creach, P., Philibert, A., Ramonet, Y., Hosiou, N., 2020. Farmers' representations of the effects of precision livestock farming on human-animal relationships. Livestock Production Science 238, e104057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104057.

* Koba, Y., Tanida, H., 1999. How do miniature pigs discriminate between people? The effect of exchanging cues between a non-handler and their familiar handler on discrimination. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61, 239–252.

* Larrère, C., Larrère, R., 2000. Animal rearing as a contract? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12, 51–58.

* Le, S., Josse, J., Husson, F., 2008. FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 25, 1–18.

* Lensink, B.J., Leruste, H., Le Roux, T., Bizeray-Filoche, D., 2009. Relationship between the behaviour of sows at 6 months old and the behaviour and performance at farrowing. Animal 3, 128–134.

* Marchant Forde, J.N., 2002. Piglet- and stockperson-directed sow aggression after farrowing and the relationship with a pre-farrowing human approach test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 115–132.

* Meyer-Hamme, S.E.K., Lambertz, C., Gauly, M., 2018. Assessing the welfare level of intensive fattening pig farms in Germany with the Welfare Quality® protocol: does farm size matter? Animal Welfare 27, 275–286.

* Mieloch, F.J., Nietfeld, S., Straßburg, C., Krieter, J., Grosse Beilage, E., Czycholl, I., 2020. Factors of potential influence on different behavioural tests in fattening pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 222, 104900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aplanim.2019.104900.

* O'Malley, C.I., Turner, S.P., D'Eath, R.B., Steibel, J.P., Bates, R.O., Ernst, C.W., Siegford, J.M., 2019. Animal personality in the management and welfare of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 218, 104821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aplanim.2019.06.002.

* Porcher, J., Cousson-Gélie, F., Dantzer, R., 2004. Affective components of the human-animal relationship in animal husbandry: development and validation of a questionnaire. Psychological Reports 95, 275–290.

* Powell, C., Hemsworth, L.M., Rice, M., Hemsworth, P.H., 2016. Comparison of methods to assess fear of humans in commercial breeding gilts and sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 181, 70–75.

* Prunier, A., Tallet, C., 2015. Endocrine and behavioural responses of sows to human interactions and consequences on reproductive performance. In: Farmer, C. (Ed.), The gestating and lactating sow. Wageningen Academic, Wageningen, the Netherlands, pp. 279–295.

* Robbins, J.A., Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Fraser, D., Weary, D.M., 2016. Invited review: farm size and animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science 94, 5439–5455.

* Roguet, C., 2017. Changes in pig farms in France under the effect of economic and regulatory constraints since 2008. Les cahiers de l'IFIP 4, 9–18.

* Seabrook, M.F., 1984. The psychological interaction between the stockman and his animals and its influence on performance of pigs and dairy cows. The Veterinary record 115, 84–87.

* Tallet, C., Brajon, S., Devillers, N., Lensink, J., 2018. Pig-human interactions: Creating a positive perception of humans to ensure pig welfare. In: Spinka, M. (Ed.), Advances in pig welfare. Woodhead Publishing, Duxford, UK, pp. 381–398.

* Therneau, T., Atkinson, B., Ripley, B., 2019. rpart: recursive partitioning and regression trees. Retrieved on 3 October 2020, from. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rpart.

* Vigors, B., Lawrence, A., 2019. What are the positives? Exploring positive welfare indicators in a qualitative interview study with livestock farmers. Animals 9, 694. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090694.
## Author contributions

F. Pol: Conceptualization, methodology, validation, writing – original draft, supervision and funding acquisition. F. Kling-Eveillard: Conceptualization, methodology, validation, writing – review & editing and supervision. F. Champigneulle: Software, formal analysis, investigation and data curation. E. Fresnay: Software, formal analysis, investigation and data curation. M. Ducrocq: Software and formal analysis. V. Courboulay: Conceptualization, methodology, validation, writing – review & editing, supervision and funding acquisition.

## Declaration of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

## Acknowledgements

This study was carried out with financial support from the French CASDAR (5620). The authors thank the farmers and stockpersons who participated in the survey. They thank Aurore Philibert, Institut de l'Élevage - Idele, and Adeline Huneau, ANSES, for their contribution to the statistical analyses.

## Financial support statement

This work was supported by the CASDAR programme of the French Ministry of Agriculture (grant number 5620).

## References

* Agreste Graph "Agri, 2019. Population agricole, formation et recherche. Retrieved on 3 October 2020, from https://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/agreste-web/disaron/GraFralntegral/detail/.

* Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Pren-tice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.

* Albarracín, D., Zanna, M.P., Johnson, B.T., Kumkale, G.T., 2005. Attitudes: Introduction and Scope. In: Albarracín, D., Johnson, B.T., Zanna, M.P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes. Psychology Press, New York, NY, USA, pp. 3–19.

* Austin, E.J., Deary, I.J., Edwards-Jones, G., Arey, D., 2005. Attitudes to farm animal welfare: Factor structure and personality correlates in farmers and agriculture students. Journal of Individual Differences 26, 107–120.

* Bock, B.B., Van Huik, M.M., 2007. Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 109, 931–944.

* Boissy, A., 1995. Fear and fearfulness in animals. Quarterly Review of Biology 70, 165–191.

* Boissy, A., Erhard, H.W., 2014. How studying interactions between animal emotions, cognition, and personality can contribute to improve farm animal welfare. In: Grandin, T., Deesing, M.J. (Eds.), Genetics and the behavior of domestic animals, 2nd edition. Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 81–113.

* Boivin, X., Bensoussan, S., L'Hotellier, N., Bignon, L., Brives, H., Brule, A., Godet, J., Grannec, M.L., Hausberger, M., Kling-Eveillard, F., Tallet, C., Courboulay, V., 2012. Humans and livestock animals at work: toward a multidisciplinary approach of relational practices. Productions Animales 25, 159–168.

* Breiman, L., Friedman, J.H., Olshen, R.A., Stone, C.J., 2017. Classification and regression trees. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, USA.

* Burton, R.J.F., Peoples, S., Cooper, M.H., 2012. Building 'cowshed cultures': a cultural perspective on the promotion of stockmanship and animal welfare on dairy farms. Journal of Rural Studies 28, 174–187.

* Coleman, G.J., Hemsworth, L.M., 2014. Training to improve stockperson beliefs and behaviour towards livestock enhances welfare and productivity. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l'OIE 33, 131–137.

* Coleman, G.J., Hay, M., Hemsworth, P.H., Cox, M., 2000. Modifying stockperson attitudes and behaviour towards pigs at a large commercial farm. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66, 11–20.

* Courboulay, V., Foubert, C., 2007. Testing different methods to evaluate pig welfare on farm. Animal Welfare 16, 193–196.

* Courboulay, V., Meunier-Salaün, M.C., Edwards, S.A., Guy, J.H., Scott, K., 2009. Human-animal relationships: validation of measures on fattening pigs. In: Forkman, B., Keeling, L. (Eds.), Welfare quality report N° 10, assessment of animal welfare measures for sows, piglets and fattening pigs. Cardiff University, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 177–184.

* Dockès, A.C., Kling-Eveillard, F., 2006. Farmers' and advisers' representations of animals and animal welfare. Livestock Science 103, 243–249.

* Dockès, A.C., Kling-Eveillard, F., 2007. Livestock farmers' perception of animals and animal welfare. Productions Animales 20, 23–28.

* European Union Council, 2009. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of the European Communities 47, 5–13.

* Gonyou, H.W., Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., 1986. Effects of frequent interactions with humans on growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16, 269–278.

* Hemsworth, P.H., 2003. Human-animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 185–198.

* Hemsworth, P.H., 2007. Ethical stockmanship. Australian Veterinary Journal 85, 194–200.

* Hemsworth, P.H., Coleman, G.J., 2011. Human-Livestock interactions: the stockperson and the productivity and welfare of farmed animals, 2nd Edition. CAB International, Waldingford, UK.

* Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Coleman, G.J., Hansen, C., 1989. 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 23, 301–314.

* Hemsworth, P.H., Coleman, G.J., Barnett, J.L., 1994. Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 349–362.

* Hemsworth, P.H., Coleman, G.J., Barnett, J.L., Borg, S., Dowling, S., 2002. The effects of cognitive behavioural intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80, 68–78.

* Hemsworth, P.H., Sherwen, S.L., Coleman, G.J., 2018. Human contact. In: Appleby, M.C., Olsson, I.A.S., Galindo, F. (Eds.), Animal welfare, 3rd edition. CAB International, Oxon, UK, pp. 294–314.

* Horback, K.M., Parsons, T.D., 2016. Temporal stability of personality traits in group-housed gestating sows. Animal 10, 1351–1359.

* Jääskeläinen, T., Kauppinen, T., Vesala, K.M., Valros, A., 2014. Relationships between pig welfare, productivity and farmer disposition. Animal Welfare 23, 435–443.

* Kauppinen, T., Vesala, K.M., Valros, A., 2012. Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livestock Science 143, 142–150.

* Kling-Eveillard, F., Allain, C., Boivin, X., Courboulay, V., Creach, P., Philibert, A., Ramonet, Y., Hosiou, N., 2020. Farmers' representations of the effects of precision livestock farming on human-animal relationships. Livestock Production Science 238, e104057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104057.

* Koba, Y., Tanida, H., 1999. How do miniature pigs discriminate between people? The effect of exchanging cues between a non-handler and their familiar handler on discrimination. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61, 239–252.

* Larrère, C., Larrère, R., 2000. Animal rearing as a contract? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12, 51–58.

* Le, S., Josse, J., Husson, F., 2008. FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 25, 1–18.

* Lensink, B.J., Leruste, H., Le Roux, T., Bizeray-Filoche, D., 2009. Relationship between the behaviour of sows at 6 months old and the behaviour and performance at farrowing. Animal 3, 128–134.

* Marchant Forde, J.N., 2002. Piglet- and stockperson-directed sow aggression after farrowing and the relationship with a pre-farrowing human approach test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 115–132.

* Meyer-Hamme, S.E.K., Lambertz, C., Gauly, M., 2018. Assessing the welfare level of intensive fattening pig farms in Germany with the Welfare Quality® protocol: does farm size matter? Animal Welfare 27, 275–286.

* Mieloch, F.J., Nietfeld, S., Straßburg, C., Krieter, J., Grosse Beilage, E., Czycholl, I., 2020. Factors of potential influence on different behavioural tests in fattening pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 222, 104900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aplanim.2019.104900.

* O'Malley, C.I., Turner, S.P., D'Eath, R.B., Steibel, J.P., Bates, R.O., Ernst, C.W., Siegford, J.M., 2019. Animal personality in the management and welfare of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 218, 104821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aplanim.2019.06.002.

* Porcher, J., Cousson-Gélie, F., Dantzer, R., 2004. Affective components of the human-animal relationship in animal husbandry: development and validation of a questionnaire. Psychological Reports 95, 275–290.

* Powell, C., Hemsworth, L.M., Rice, M., Hemsworth, P.H., 2016. Comparison of methods to assess fear of humans in commercial breeding gilts and sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 181, 70–75.

* Prunier, A., Tallet, C., 2015. Endocrine and behavioural responses of sows to human interactions and consequences on reproductive performance. In: Farmer, C. (Ed.), The gestating and lactating sow. Wageningen Academic, Wageningen, the Netherlands, pp. 279–295.

* Robbins, J.A., Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Fraser, D., Weary, D.M., 2016. Invited review: farm size and animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science 94, 5439–5455.

* Roguet, C., 2017. Changes in pig farms in France under the effect of economic and regulatory constraints since 2008. Les cahiers de l'IFIP 4, 9–18.

* Seabrook, M.F., 1984. The psychological interaction between the stockman and his animals and its influence on performance of pigs and dairy cows. The Veterinary record 115, 84–87.

* Tallet, C., Brajon, S., Devillers, N., Lensink, J., 2018. Pig-human interactions: Creating a positive perception of humans to ensure pig welfare. In: Spinka, M. (Ed.), Advances in pig welfare. Woodhead Publishing, Duxford, UK, pp. 381–398.

* Therneau, T., Atkinson, B., Ripley, B., 2019. rpart: recursive partitioning and regression trees. Retrieved on 3 October 2020, from. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rpart.

* Vigors, B., Lawrence, A., 2019. What are the positives? Exploring positive welfare indicators in a qualitative interview study with livestock farmers. Animals 9, 694. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090694.
Waiblinger, S., Boivin, X., Pedersen, V., Tosi, M.V., Janczak, A.M., Visser, E.K., Jones, R.B., 2006. Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. *Applied Animal Behaviour Science* 101, 185-242.

Wang, C., Chen, Y., Bi, Y., Zhao, P., Sun, H., Li, J., Liu, H., Zhang, R., Li, X., Bao, J., 2020. Effects of long-term gentle handling on behavioral responses, production performance, and meat quality of pigs. *Animals* 10, 330.

Welfare Quality Consortium, 2009. Welfare quality assessment protocol for pigs. *Welfare Quality Consortium*, Lelystad, the Netherlands, p. 120.

Windschnurer, I., Boivin, X., Coleman, G., Ruis, M., Mounaix, B., Brule, A., Waiblinger, S., 2009. A multimedia-based cognitive behavioural intervention program improves attitudes and handling behaviours of stockpeople on dairy farms. 4th Joint East and West Central Europe ISAE regional meeting, 25-26 September 2009, Vienna, Austria, p. 12.

Zulkifli, I., 2013. Review of human-animal interactions and their impact on animal productivity and welfare. *Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology* 4, 25.
Waiblinger, S., Boivin, X., Pedersen, V., Tosi, M.V., Janczak, A.M., Visser, E.K., Jones, R.B., 2006. Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. *Applied Animal Behaviour Science* 101, 185–242.

Wang, C., Chen, Y., Bi, Y., Zhao, P., Sun, H., Li, J., Liu, H., Zhang, R., Li, X., Bao, J., 2020. Effects of long-term gentle handling on behavioral responses, production performance, and meat quality of pigs. *Animals* 10, 330.

Welfare Quality Consortium, 2009. Welfare quality assessment protocol for pigs. *Welfare Quality Consortium*, Lelystad, the Netherlands, p. 120.

Windschnurer, I., Boivin, X., Coleman, G., Ruis, M., Mounaix, B., Brule, A., Waiblinger, S., 2009. A multimedia-based cognitive behavioural intervention program improves attitudes and handling behaviours of stockpeople on dairy farms. 4th Joint East and West Central Europe ISAE regional meeting, 25-26 September 2009, Vienna, Austria, p. 12.

Zulkifli, I., 2013. Review of human-animal interactions and their impact on animal productivity and welfare. *Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology* 4, 25.