I would probably use dB measurement at definite times. The loudest, the most stressful for cattle.

Hi Ankaj,

The tests mentioned are probably applicable to grazing or transhumant animals, but with caution, and the results will not necessarily be comparable with those obtained under the conditions of application of AWIN tests. The time of day will probably have to be standardised, depending on the habits of the herd and the herdsmen. Results may differ if tests are performed in a nocturnal gathering pen, when animals are dispersed and grazing, or when they move between two grazing sequences. Behaviours differ between individuals in the same herd, but also between breeds of the same species, which can complicate sampling. The conditions for applying the tests will also have to be adapted to the species concerned. Finally, the person performing the test is a priori unknown to the animals to be tested. She must know the behaviour of and the signals emitted by the different animals well, to avoid putting herself in danger, but also to avoid biasing her observations.

Maurice Mahieu Thank sirfor your detailed explanation. Could you please help in clarifying some more points related to this topic. Pastoral animals can consider the assessor as the Predator and could have larger flight distance when compared to the animals under extensive system. Therefore, when we are performing the test with unfamiliar human should it be placed in Human-animal interaction or under prevention from predator risk. We can further assess the Human-animal interaction through observing the way the owner of the flock is handling the animals

Hi Ankaj,

difficult to know what really motivates an animal's behaviour, but I think that an unknown human or sheepdog attracts more attention than if they are familiar. They can provoke curiosity but at the same time increased vigilance, and a very strong reaction to any movement that can be assimilated to the beginning of an attack (from the point of view of this animal). This reaction is usually the flight but can turn into an attack, for example in the case of a cow with a young calf. This is true for both free animals and animals in fenced pastures, with the difference that free animals may choose to move away and keep a distance from the unknown while those in a limited space may not always have this possibility and react with aggression. Previous positive or negative experiences can strongly modulate the response in one way or another.

As you suggest, I think that observing the owners of the herd, their relationships with the different categories of animals, can provide a lot of information. It also seems important to me to collect how herd owners describe their relationship with the different categories of animals (dominant animals, leaders, breeding females, milked or not, breeding males, young, pack or harness animals...). This can be done in a way that minimizes the direct impact of the observer on the herd.

Finally, what is the actual question: the relationship between the pastor and his herd or between the herd and a stranger? In my view, the former has the advantage of being stable and based on a set of techniques and behaviours that may differ from one culture to another, while the latter depends too much on the behaviour of the observer himself.

Maurice Mahieu

Thank you for taking your time to share your knowledge with me. Sir actually, I am working on welfare assessment of the animals in extensive system/pastoral. I want to know, how we can assess the Human-animal relationship in their animals.

Unfamiliar Human

a) Avoidance distance test- can it be used on them and if it is used, the more the avoidance distance the better will be for them because of unfamiliar human (as the animal may perceive them as predator). Same result are expected with chin contact test (in case of goats) and Latency to first contact, which is just reverse in case of the animals maintained in extensive system. It may be help in reaching conclusion the more the flight distance the better it is for them as it can help in reducing livestock Depredation.

b) Surprise test- This can also be used using umbrella/ or any other object which may surprise them. Finding their response to the surprise can help us in interpreting their behavior and vigilance.

Familiar Human

a) Handling test- This can be performed by telling the stockperson to handle the animals without letting him to know about the objective of the study. This can help us in knowing the attitude of the stockperson towards animals. Animal response can also be recorded which should not be aversive, as they solely responsible for enhancing the welfare of their animals.

Sir, I have two questions in my mind?

i. Can we use these indicators for welfare assessment of animals in extensive system?

ii. Are these indicators enough to interpret the Human-animal relationship in these animals or do I need to be incorporate more indicators in our study?

I will be grateful for any advice that you can provide.

just one question before answering: for us, an extensive system is a livestock system with a minimum of inputs and few human interventions, i.e. ranching in the USA or South America. On the other hand, an intensive livestock system uses industrial methods, with a high density of animals, but finally few positive interactions between humans and animals, with robotic farming as the extreme.

Do you have the same definition of extensive systems?

this subject require also an anthropological approach in the sense that since a certain ethnic group prize a specific animal species over another their behaviour toward that species is different that the behaviour of another ethnic group towards the same species. For example camels are a top livestock among Somali and their management is much more complex and deep that camel management of an essential cattle ethnic group such a Turkana.

Discussion about welfare in a pastoral setting is extremely complex, deeply rooted to the specific ethnic groups and as such it really cannot be objectively evaluated using our modern standard as is obvious from this article: Article Nomad aesthetic: Cattle modifications among the northern Tur...

Maurice Mahieu Sir, here I am basically referring extensive system to vertical transhumance or may be horizontal transhumance. They continue migration throughout year with their livestock and have fixed migratory routes to take adavantage of the environment diversity. They provide very little or basically no inputs to their animals (mainly sheep and goat). It is a part of their tradition and culture (nomadic pastoralism).

Maurizio Dioli Rightly said sir this production system is complex. Therefore we need to study the attitudes and the personality traits of the stockman. This will also be beneficial in improving welfare of the animals reared by them

Maurizio Dioli Thank you sir for sharing link of your paper. I am wondering how these nomads are using cold branding, as it needs inputs like cold ice or ethyl alcohol. However, hot branding require no such inputs. Sir, can you let me know how they are doing cold branding in nomad conditions.

the term I used is "cooler branding" this is not equivalent to "cold branding" or "freeze-branding" . It is still a hot branding but the iron used is not as hot and applied to the areas for a shorter time than in the classical branding technique. The result is that the hair growth cells of the branded area are not destroyed and hair grow back but with an increased concentration of the local skin pigment

Ankaj Thakur I totally agree with Maurizio on the value of an ethnographic approach, but it must include an assessment of animal responses to the humans with whom they live, which implies an observer capable of correctly interpreting the signals and attitudes of different types of animals. The methods ( AWIN tests or others) adapted to intensive (industrial) livestock farming seem to me to be rather unsuited to the complexity of the subject.

Maurizio Dioli Thank you very much for sharing this very nice paper, which suggests very old origins to Turkana culture.

Thank you Maurice for your generous words.

At the risk of being vilified and submerged by criticism I would say that "animal welfare", as it is interpreted by the modern husbandry production systems of developed countries, cannot be adopted in a pastoral nomadic set up. In such environment "animal welfare" is secondary to human survival and all husbandry practices are focused to achieve this.

In a pastoral nomadic set up there are many commonly used husbandry methods in weaning, milking management, restraint, marking, veterinary treatments, that can be classified as animal cruelty using our "western" style "animal welfare" definition. However such "cruelty" is not gratuitous but dictated by the need to survive an uncompromising and harsh environment.

Maurizio Dioli I totally agree with you. The Western conception of "animal welfare" certainly makes it possible to limit the abuses produced by industrial farming methods, which only considers the animal as a production machine and gives it only an economic value. However, regulations in this area are developed by urban elites under pressure from urban elites who have very poor if any knowledge of animals other than their pets, and even less knowledge of the relationships between herders' societies and animal societies as they have been built for more than 10,000 years during the domestication process.

Ankaj Thakur , about your post last week:

" Unfamiliar Human

a) Avoidance distance test- can it be used on them and if it is used, the more the avoidance distance the better will be for them because of unfamiliar human (as the animal may perceive them as predator). Same result are expected with chin contact test (in case of goats) and Latency to first contact, which is just reverse in case of the animals maintained in extensive system. It may be help in reaching conclusion the more the flight distance the better it is for them as it can help in reducing livestock Depredation."

Be aware that goats, sheep, etc. are quite capable of distinguishing between an unknown human and a wolf or big cat. It is therefore not certain that the test mentioned correctly reflects the flight distance from a predator.

In addition, to be interpretable, such a test must take into account the social and spatial organization of the herd, and the signals that are exchanged between members of the herd in the presence of an unknown human or predator-identified. Testing a young male on the periphery will not produce the same response as a female with her young in the core of the herd, or as a dominant male. This therefore implies a very detailed knowledge of the structure of the herd and the role of each of its members, which will be easier to acquire from the herders than from direct observation, which would probably be long enough to make the observer become a familiar human.

Maurice Mahieu Thank you sir for your detailed explanation and guidance that you provided to me.