Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:43:12.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer demand under commercial husbandry conditions: practical advice on measuring behavioural priorities in captive animals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

JJ Cooper
JJ Cooper*
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lincoln, Riseholme Park, Lincoln LN2 2LG, UK
*
[email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In recent years, consumer demand studies have been used to objectively quantify the value that captive animals place on environmental resources. Considerable progress has been made in the development of effective methodologies to assess what resources are valued under controlled experimental conditions, but few of the findings from these studies have been implemented in commercial husbandry systems. A major obstacle has been the need to maintain internal validity in experimental studies at the possible expense of external validity. Experimental subjects may be poor representatives of commercially kept animals, especially where there is no replication of the animal's experience of commercial physical and social environments. This paper will discuss means of increasing the external validity of consumer demand studies. Firstly, experimental animals should be of representative genotypes, reared under commercial conditions and housed in test apparatus with free access to all of the resources that are normally available under commercial husbandry conditions. As well as providing a long-term closed economy, this allows manipulation of potentially important environmental factors such as prior experience. Secondly, naturalistic tasks should, where possible, be used in preference to abstract operant tasks since they appear to be easier to train animals to associate with rewarding resources, therefore many individuals can be investigated efficiently. Furthermore, naturalistic tasks appear to be less prone to operant bias than artificial tasks and can provide robust measures of value in terms of the maximum price paid for access to resources. Finally, for group-housed species, social costs such as enduring higher stocking densities and/or competition for resources may be an effective means of investigating cost-benefit trade-offs under commercial conditions. For example, if animals work to evenly distribute themselves over available space, this social spacing priority can be used to investigate whether they will endure higher stocking densities in order to exploit particular resources.

Keywords

animal welfarebehavioural needsbehavioural prioritiesconsumer demandconsumer surplusenvironmental enrichment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue S1: Science in the Service of Animal Welfare: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium, Edinburgh, 2-4 April 2003 , February 2004 , pp. S47 - S56
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Albentosa, M J and Cooper, J J 2003 Cage height preferences of laying hens housed in furnished cages. British Poultry Science 44: 55–56Google Scholar
Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O 1991 Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World's Poultry Science Journal 47: 109–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C, Hughes, B O and Elson, A 1992 Poultry Production Systems: Behaviour, Management and Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C, McRae, H E, Duncan, I J H and Bisazza, A 1984 Choice of social conditions by laying hens. British Poultry Science 25: 111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C, Smith, S F and Hughes, B O 1993 Nesting, dustbathing and perching by laying hens in cages — effects of design on behaviour and welfare. British Poultry Science 34: 835–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C, Walker, A W, Nicol, C J, Freire, R, Hughes, B O and Elson, H A 2002 Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 43: 489–500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bubier, N E 1996a The behavioural priorities of laying hens: the effects of two methods of environment enrichment on time budgets. Behavioural Processes 37: 239–249CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bubier, N E 1996b The behavioural priorities of laying hens: the effect of cost/no cost multi-choice teats on time budgets. Behavioural Processes 37: 225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J and Albentosa, M J 2003 Behavioural needs in the domestic hen. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews 14: 127–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J and Appleby, M C 1994 The use of aversive barriers to quantify nesting motivation. In: Sherwin, C M (ed) Modified Cages for Laying Hens pp 11–24. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J and Appleby, M C 1995 The effects of experience on motivation: prelaying behaviour in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J and Appleby, M C 1996 Demand for nest boxes in laying hens. Behavioural Processes 36: 171–182CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, J J and Appleby, M C 1997 Motivational aspects of individual variation in response to nest boxes by laying hens. Animal Behaviour 54: 1245–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J and Appleby, M C 2003 The value of environmental resources to domestic hens: a comparison of the work-rate for food and for nests as a function of time. Animal Welfare 12: 3952Google Scholar
Cooper, J J and Mason, G J 2000 Increasing costs of access to resources cause re-scheduling of behaviours in American mink (Mustela vison): implications for the assessment of behavioural priorities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 135–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J and Mason, G J 2001 Measuring behavioural priorities in captive animals. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 33: 427–434CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, J J, McAfee, L and Skinn, H 2002 Behavioural responses of domestic ducks to nipple drinkers, bell drinkers and water troughs. British Poultry Science 43: 517–518Google Scholar
Danish Fur Breeders Association 1985 Mink Production. Scientifur: Hilleroed, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1980 Animal Suffering: the Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1983 Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of behavioural ‘needs’. Animal Behaviour 20: 209–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1988 Behavioural deprivation: a central problem in animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 209–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal's point of view: motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1995 How do hens recognise other hens? The use of lateral and binocular vision in social recognition. Behaviour 132: 591–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S and Beardsley, T 1986 Reinforcing properties of access to litter in hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S and Hardie, S 1989 Space needs of laying hens. British Poultry Science 30: 413–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Kite, V G 1987 Some investigations into motivation in the domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17: 215–231Google Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Kite, V G 1989 Nest-site selection and nest building behaviour in domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour 37: 215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H, Savory, C J and Wood-Gush, D G M 1978 Observations on the reproductive behaviour of domestic fowl in the wild. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunstone, N 1993 The Mink. Poyser: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Estevez, I, Newberry, R C and Keeling, L J 2002 Dynamics of aggression in the domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 307–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faure, J M 1986 Operant determination of the cage and feeder size preferences of the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faure, JM 1991 Rearing conditions and needs for space and litter in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freire, R, Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O 1997 Assessment of pre-laying motivation in the domestic hen using social interaction. Animal Behaviour 54: 313–319CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freire, R, Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O 1998 Effects of social interactions on pre-laying behaviour in hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freire, R, Wilkins, L J, Short, F and Nicol, C J 2003 Behaviour and welfare of individual laying hens in a non-cage system. British Poultry Science 44: 22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, H W 2001 The social behaviour of pigs. In: Keeling, L J and Gonyou, H W (eds) Social Behaviour in Farm Animals pp 147–176. CAB International: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grigor, P N, Hughes, B O and Appleby, M C 1995 Social inhibition of movement in domestic hens. Animal Behaviour 49: 1381–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen C, P B and Jeppesen, L L 2000 Short term behavioural consequences of denied access to environmental facilities in mink. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 9: 149–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen C, P B and Jeppesen, L L 2001 Swimming activity of farm mink (Mustela vison) and its relation to stereotypies. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavia, Section A, Animal Science 51: 71–76Google Scholar
Hansen, S W, Jensen, M B, Pedersen, L J, Munksgaard, L, Ladewig, J and Matthews, L 2002 The type of operant response affects the slope of the demand curve for food in mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, J V, Nicol, C J, Lines, J A, White, R P and Wathes, C M 2001a Behaviour of domestic ducks exposed to mobile predator stimuli: I. Flock responses. British Poultry Science 42: 433–438CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, J V, Lines, J A, Wathes, C M, White, R P and Nicol, C J 2001b Behaviour of domestic ducks exposed to mobile predator stimuli: 2. The association of individual duckling attributes with relative position in a flock. British Poultry Science 42: 439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodos, W 1961 Progressive ratio as a measure of reward strength. Science 134: 943–944CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houston, A I 1997 Demand curves and welfare. Animal Behaviour 53: 983–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsia, L C and Wood-Gush, D G M 1983 A note on social facilitation and competition in the feeding behaviour of domestic pigs. Animal Production 37: 149–152Google Scholar
Hughes, B O, Duncan, I J H and Brown, M 1989 The performance of nest building by domestic hens: is it more important than the construction of the nest? Animal Behaviour 36: 327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M B, Pedersen, L J and Ladewig, J 2004 The use of demand functions to assess behavioural priorities in large farm animals. In: KirkWood, J K, Roberts, E A and Vickery, S (eds) Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Science in the Service of Animal Welfare’, Edinburgh, 2003. Animal Welfare 13: 527–532 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Keeling, L J 1994 Inter-bird distances and behavioural priorities in laying hens: the effect of spatial restriction. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L J 1995 Spacing behaviour and an ethological approach to assessing optimum space allocations for groups of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 171–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L J and Duncan, I J H 1991 Social spacing of domestic fowl under semi-natural conditions. The effect of behavioural activity and activity transitions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 205–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L J and Gonyou, H W 2001 Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. CAB International: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkden, R D, Edwards, J S S and Broom, D M 2003 A theoretical comparison of the consumer surplus and elasticities of demand as measures of motivational strength. Animal Behaviour 65: 157–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, A B and Illius, A W 1989 Methodology for measuring hunger and food needs using operant conditioning in the pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, A C 2001 Group life. In: Keeling, L J and Gonyou, H W (eds) Social Behaviour in Farm Animals pp 37–82. CAB International: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J, Cooper, J J and Clareborough, C 2001 Frustrations of fur-farmed mink. Nature 410: 35–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, G J, Cooper, J J and Clareborough, C 2002 The use of techniques from human economics to measure what animals value, illustrated by experimental work on the American mink (Mustela vison). In: Hare, V J, Worley, K E and Myers, K (eds) Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Environmental Enrichment, Edinburgh 1999 pp 111–117. The Shape of Enrichment: San Diego, USAGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J, Cooper, J J and Garner, J 1997 Models of decision making and how they affect the experimental assessment of motivational priorities. In: Animal Choices (BSAS Occasional Publication Number 20) pp 9–19. British Society for Animal Science: Penicuik, Scotland, UKGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J, McFarland, D and Garner, J 1998 A demanding task: using economic techniques to assess animal priorities. Animal Behaviour 55: 1071–1075CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthews, L R and Ladewig, J 1994 Environmental requirements of pigs measured by behavioural demand functions. Animal Behaviour 47: 713–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijsser, F M and Hughes, B O 1989 Comparative analysis of pre-laying behaviour in battery cages and in three alternative systems. British Poultry Science 30: 747–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mench, J and Keeling, L J 2001 The social behaviour of domestic birds. In: Keeling, L J and Gonyou, H W (eds) Social Behaviour in Farm Animals pp 177–209. CAB International: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendl, M and Held, S 2001 Living in groups: an evolutionary perspective. In: Keeling, L J and Gonyou, H W (eds) Social Behaviour in Farm Animals pp 7–36. CAB International: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier-Salaun, M C and Faure, J M 1984 On the feeding behaviour of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 13: 129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millman, S T and Duncan, I J H 2001 Social cognition in farm animals. In: Keeling, L J and Gonyou, H W (eds) Social Behaviour in Farm Animals pp 373–400. CAB International: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, B R 1973 The role of directed Pavlovian reactions in simple instrumental learning in the pigeon. In: Hinde, R A and Stevenson-Hinde, J (eds) Constraints on Learning pp 159–186. Academic Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Ng, Y K 1990 The case for and difficulties of using demand areas for measuring welfare changes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 30–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C J 1986 Non-exclusive spatial preference in the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C J 1995 The social transmission of information and behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 79–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C J and Guilford, T 1991 Exploratory activity as a measure of motivation in deprived hens. Animal Behaviour 41: 333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C J and Pope, S J 1999 The effects of demonstrator social status and prior foraging success on social learning in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57: 163–171CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nimon, A J and Broom, D M 1999 The welfare of farmed mink (Mustela vison) in relation to housing and management: a review. Animal Welfare 8: 205–228Google Scholar
Olsson, I A S and Keeling, L J 2002 The push-door for measuring motivation in hens: laying hens are motivated to perch at night. Animal Welfare 11: 11–19Google Scholar
Olsson, I A S, Keeling, L J and McAdie, T M 2002 The push-door for measuring motivation in hens: an adaptation and a critical discussion of the method. Animal Welfare 11: 1–10Google Scholar
Pedersen, L J, Jensen, M B, Hansen, S W, Munksgaard, L, Ladewig, J and Matthews, L 2002 Social isolation affects the motivation to work for food and straw in pigs as measured by operant conditioning techniques. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77: 295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherick, J C and Rutter, S M 1990 Quantifying motivation using a computer-controlled push-door. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C M and Nicol, C J 1995 Changes in meal patterning by mice measure the cost imposed by natural obstacles. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C M and Nicol, C J 1996 Reorganisation of behaviour in laboratory mice, Mus musculus, with varying cost of access to resources. Animal Behaviour 51: 1087–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C M and Nicol, C J 1997 Behavioural demand functions of caged laboratory mice for additional space. Animal Behaviour 53: 67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S F, Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O 1990 Problem solving by domestic hens — opening doors to reach nest sites. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 287–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumpter, C E, Temple, W and Foster, T M 1999 The effects of differing response types and price manipulations on demand measures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 71: 329–354CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teitelbaum, P 1966 The use of operant methods in the assessment and control of motivational states. In: Honig, W K (ed) Operant Behaviour: Areas of Research and Application pp 565–608. Appleton-Century-Crofts: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Warburton, H and Mason, G J 2003 Is out of sight, out of mind? The effects of resource cues on motivation in the mink (Mustela vison). Animal Behaviour 65: 755–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A B and Hurnik, J F 1994 Sychronisation of behaviour among laying hens in battery cages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40: 153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood-Gush, D G M 1975 Nest construction by the domestic hen: some comparative and physiological considerations. In: Wright, P, Caryl, P G and Vowles, D M (eds) Neural and Endocrine Aspects of Behaviour in Birds pp 35–49. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Young, R J, MacLoed, H A and Lawrence, A B 1994 Effect of manipulandum design on operant responding in pigs. Animal Behaviour 47: 1488–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar