Is the Familiar Human Approach Test a valid method for evaluating the quality of human-goat relationship in pasture-based systems?

A study was carried out to validate the Familiar Human Approach Test (FHAT) for the evaluation of the human- animal relationship (HAR) in goats at pasture. The FHAT originally proposed for sheep (AWIN Welfare Assess- ment Protocol) was modified to be adapted to goats. The validation of this modified version of FHAT was carried out by checking its convergent validity with the Latency to the First Contact Test (Latency; expressed in seconds), which was already developed, validated, and included in the AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Goats to evaluate HAR for dairy goats kept indoors. Eighteen dairy goat farms were included in this study. The FHAT was performed during the grazing season at pasture by familiar assessors (i.e., farmers), while external assessors evaluated the reaction of goats to the routine gathering of animals by the farmer. The Latency was performed both by unfamiliar and familiar assessors during autumn-winter indoor housing. Farms were classified into four classes, based on goats’ reactions to farmers at pasture: 1. Avoidance (withdrawal of the whole flock from the farmer, n= 4); 2. Approach (at least one goat allows the farmer to approach and/or follows the farmer; no physical interaction, n= 7); 3. Contact (at least one goat voluntarily approaches the farmer; contact lasts ≤3 seconds, n= 3); and 4. Acceptance (at least one goat accepts to be touched by the farmer; contact lasts >3 seconds, n= 4). Latency time was compared among the four classes. Latency was higher in the classes without contact (Avoidance and Approach) when compared to the classes with contact (Contact and Acceptance) be- tween humans and goats. However, the differences among the classes were significant in response to the presence of the familiar assessor only [familiar assessor (P=0.016): Avoidance: 164.3 ± 114.83 s, Approach: 115.6 ± 127.04 s, Contact: 48.0 ± 40.95 s, Acceptance: 7.8 ± 5.44 s; unfamiliar assessor (P=0.631): Avoidance: 161.5 ± 159.96 s, Approach: 144.6 ± 122.35 s, Contact: 77.3 ± 39.88 s, Acceptance: 61.0 ± 67.38 s]. The four classes were then merged depending on the absence (Avoidance+Approach) or presence (Contact+Acceptance) of physical interaction between goats and farmers. Again, Latency time was significantly (133.3 ± 119.34 s vs 25.0 ± 32.20 s; P=0.006) and not significantly (150.7 ± 129.34 s vs 68.0 ± 53.63 s; P=0.328) different when performed by the familiar and unfamiliar assessors, respectively. The strong correlation between Latency to the familiar and unfamiliar assessors suggests that goats generalize their response to humans based on HAR quality. Results support the use of FHAT for the evaluation of HAR in goats raised in pasture-based systems.