Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Mar 18;12(6):774.
doi: 10.3390/ani12060774.

Humans and Goats: Improving Knowledge for a Better Relationship

Affiliations
Review

Humans and Goats: Improving Knowledge for a Better Relationship

Stefania Celozzi et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

There is consensus that the quality of the human-animal relationship (HAR) is relevant to guarantee appropriate levels of animal welfare. Given the impact that HAR may have on both goats and human beings, the aim of the present review is to elucidate: (1) how humans and goats communicate; (2) which are the factors affecting human-goat interactions; (3) how we can measure the quality of this relationship. The systematic review led to the selection of 58 relevant articles. Effective human-goat communication takes place by means of visual, tactile and auditory stimuli and, to a less extent, via olfactory and gustative stimuli. Goats have well-developed socio-cognitive abilities and rely on humans to get relevant information. A deep knowledge of goats' communication means and socio-cognitive abilities may greatly help improving the human-goat relationship. Management practices (e.g., rearing methods, amount and quality of interactions), as well as genetic selection for suitable individual traits, may contribute to improving HAR. Several measures to assess the quality of HAR have been validated, including avoidance in the pen and at the feeding rack and latency to first contact. Finally, farmers' attitudes and empathy with goats, as well as their motivation to work with animals, should be improved through appropriate training.

Keywords: Capra aegagrus hircus; animal welfare; attitude; behaviour; communication; empathy; human–animal relationship; interspecific interactions; stockperson.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the systematic literature review process displaying exclusion and inclusion steps.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rault J.L., Waiblinger S., Boivin X., Hemsworth P. The Power of a Positive Human–Animal Relationship for Animal Welfare. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020;7:590867. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.590867. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Waiblinger S., Boivin X., Pedersen V., Tosi M.V., Janczak A.M., Visser E.K., Jones R.B. Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006;101:185–242. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001. - DOI
    1. Estep D., Hetts S. Interactions, relationships and bonds: The conceptual basis for scientist-animal relations. In: Davis H., Balfou A., editors. The Inevitable Bond-Examining Scientist-Animal Interactions. CAB International; Cambridge, UK: 1992. pp. 6–26.
    1. Hemsworth P.H., Price E.O., Borgwardt R. Behavioural responses of domestic pigs and cattle to human kind novel stimuli. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1996;50:43–56. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(96)01067-2. - DOI
    1. Rybarczyk P., Koba Y., Rushen J., Tanida H., De Passillé A.M. Can cows discriminate people by their faces? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001;74:175–189. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00162-9. - DOI