The present paper focuses on six main issues. First, we briefly explain why an increased understanding of the human–animal relationship (HAR) is an essential component of any strategy intended to improve the welfare of farmed animals and their stockpersons. Second, we list the main internal and external factors that can influence the nature of the relationship and the interactions between human beings and farm animals. Third, we argue that the numerous tests that have been used to assess the HAR fall into three main categories (stationary human, moving human, handling/restraint), according to the degree of human involvement. Fourth, the requirements that any test of HAR must fulfil before it can be considered effective, and the ways in which the tests can be validated are discussed. Fifth, the various types of test procedures that have been used to assess the HAR in a range of farmed species are reviewed and critically discussed. Finally, some research perspectives that merit further attention are shown.The present review embraces a range of farmed animals. Our primary reasons for including a particular species were: whether or not general interest has been expressed in its welfare and its relationship with humans, whether relevant literature was available, and whether it is farmed in at least some European countries. Therefore, we include large and small ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats), pigs, poultry (chickens), fur animals (foxes, mink) and horses. Although horses are primarily used for sport, leisure or therapy they are farmed as draught, food or breeding animals in many countries. Literature on the HAR in other species was relatively scarce so they receive no further mention here

Laying hens may face a number of welfare problems including: acute and chronic pain caused by beak trimming; exaggerated fearfulness that may cause s

Stress influences many aspects of animal behaviour and is a major factor driving populations to adapt to changing living conditions, such as during domestication. Stress can affect offspring through non-genetic mechanisms, but recent research indicates that inherited epigenetic modifications of the genome could possibly also be involved. Red junglefowl (RJF, ancestors of modern chickens) and domesticated White Leghorn (WL) chickens were raised in a stressful environment (unpredictable light-dark rhythm) and control animals in similar pens, but on a 12/12 h light-dark rhythm. WL in both treatments had poorer spatial learning ability than RJF, and in both populations, stress caused a reduced ability to solve a spatial learning task. Offspring of stressed WL, but not RJF, raised without parental contact, had a reduced spatial learning ability compared to offspring of non-stressed animals in a similar test as that used for their parents. Offspring of stressed WL were also more competitive and grew faster than offspring of non-stressed parents. Using a whole-genome cDNA microarray, we found that in WL, the same changes in hypothalamic gene expression profile caused by stress in the parents were also found in the offspring. In offspring of stressed WL, at least 31 genes were up- or down-regulated in the hypothalamus and pituitary compared to offspring of non-stressed parents. Our results suggest that, in WL the gene expression response to stress, as well as some behavioural stress responses, were transmitted across generations. The ability to transmit epigenetic information and behaviour modifications between generations may therefore have been favoured by domestication. The mechanisms involved remain to be investigated; epigenetic modifications could either have been inherited or acquired de novo in the specific egg environment. In both cases, this would offer a novel explanation to rapid evolutionary adaptation of a population.