A negative human-animal relationship (HAR) from the perspective of the animal is a limiting factor affecting farm animal welfare, as well as farm animal productivity. Research in farm animals has elucidated sequential relationships between stockperson attitudes, stockperson behaviour, farm animal fear behaviour, farm animal stress physiology, and farm animal productivity. In situations where stockperson attitudes to and interactions with farm animals are sub-optimal, through animal fear and stress, both animal welfare and productivity, including reproductive performance, can be compromised. There is a growing body of evidence that farm animals often seek and enjoy interacting with humans, but our understanding of the effects of a positive HAR on stress resilience and productivity in farm animals is limited. In this review, we explore the pathways by which stress induced by human-animal interactions can negatively affect farm animal reproduction, in particular, via inhibitory effects on the secretion of gonadotrophins. We also review the current knowledge of the stockperson characteristics and the nature of stockperson interactions that affect fear and physiological stress in farm animals. The contents of this review provide an insight into the importance of the HAR on farm animal welfare and reproduction while highlighting the gap in knowledge regarding the effects of a positive HAR on farm animals.

This research studied whether floor feeding group-housed sows their daily allocation over multiple feed drops per day provides more equitable feeding opportunities in later drops. Over four time replicates, 275 sows were mixed into groups of 10 for both their first and second gestations (200 sows/gestation, 126 sows observed in both gestations). The feeding behavior of individual sows was recorded for 10 min following each of four feed drops per day (0730, 0900, 1100, 1500 h) on days 2, 9 and 51 post-mixing. The location of feeding sows (i.e., feeding in areas associated with high, reduced or little/no food availability) was also recorded. Sow aggressive behavior on day 2 was used to classify sows as dominant (D), subdominant (SD), or submissive (SM). Dominant sows spent the most time feeding in areas of high-food availability (gestation 1, p < 0.001; gestation 2, p = 0.023); SD sows fed more frequently than D sows from areas of reduced food availability (gestation 1, p = 0.001; gestation 2, p = 0.025); and SM sows performed more feeding behavior in areas of little/no food availability (gestation 1, p < 0.001; gestation 2, p < 0.001). These relationships did not change over feed drops or days in either gestation (p > 0.05). Further research on the management and design of floor feeding systems is required, with a particular emphasis on increasing accessibility to sows that avoid the feeding area.