Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:43:42.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of demand functions to assess behavioural priorities in farm animals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

MB Jensen ,
LJ Pedersen  and
J Ladewig
MB Jensen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box SO, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
LJ Pedersen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box SO, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
J Ladewig
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box SO, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [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.

The use of demand functions to identify the behaviours most important to animals has been advocated widely. The principle is to place increasing cost on the opportunity to perform several behaviours and subsequently to rank these behaviours according to the change in their performance as a function of cost; this change is described by the elasticity of the demand function. However, the method has been criticised for placing the animal in too artificial a setting. Firstly, the animal works repeatedly for short periods of access to a resource, which may interrupt bouts of behaviour; secondly, animals are tested in isolation, which may affect their motivation to perform the target behaviour; and, finally, assumptions regarding the effect of prior deprivation and reward duration on elasticity of demand need to be tested. This criticism, however, is important only if these factors do affect the elasticity of the resulting demand function. This paper reviews experiments that have developed methods to assess the importance of various behaviours to farm animals and that have tested the effect of social context, length of deprivation of a resource and reward duration. It is concluded that the elasticity of demand function may be used to assess the relative importance of various behaviours, but that it is important to make sure that the experimental set-up yields valid estimates of the elasticity of demand.

Keywords

animal welfarebehavioural prioritiescattledemand functionsmotivationpig
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. S27 - S32
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Collier, G H, Johnson, D F, CyBulski, K A and McHale, C A 1990 Activity pattern in rats (Rattus norvegicus) as a function of the cost of access to resources. Journal of Comparative Psychology 104: 53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J 2004 Consumer demand under commercial husbandry conditions: practical advice on measuring behavioural priorities in captive 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: 547–556 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Cooper, J J and Mason, G 1997 The effects of cost of access on consumption of environmental resources in mink. In: Forbes, J M, Lawrence, T L J, Rodway, R G and Varley, M A (eds) Animal Choices pp 120–130. British Society of Animal Science Occasional Publication No. 20. British Society of Animal Science: Penicuik, Scotland, UKGoogle 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: 135–151Google Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1983 Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs’. Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal's point of view: motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1997 Suffering, demand curves and welfare: a reply to Houston. Animal Behaviour 53: 1119–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnarsson, S, Matthews, L R, Foster, T M and Temple, W 2002 The demand for straw and feathers as litter substrates by laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, S W, Jensen, M B, Pedersen, L J, Munksgaard, L, Ladewig, J and Matthews, L 2002 The effect of response type on the demand for food in mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L, Jensen, M B and Jeppesen, L L 2002 Calves’ motivation for access to two different types of social contact measured by operant conditioning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 175–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, A I 1997 Demand curves and welfare. Animal Behaviour 53: 983–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hursh, S R 1980 Economic concepts for the analysis of behaviour. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 34: 219–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hursh, S R 1984 Behavioural economics. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 42: 435–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hursh, S R and Natelson, B H 1981 Electrical brain stimulation and food reinforcement dissociated by demand elasticity. Physiology and Behavior 26: 509–515CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hursh, S R, Raslear, T G, Shurtleff, D, Bauman, R and Simmons, L 1988 A cost-benefit analysis of the demand for food. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 50: 419–440CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, M B 1999 Adaptation to tethering in yearling heifers assessed by use of lying down behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62: 115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M B, Pedersen, L J, Hansen, S W, Munksgaard, L, Ladewig, J and Matthews, L 2001 The effect of interrupted social contact on the social behaviour of calves and piglets. Behavioural Processes 56: 23–29CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, M B, Munksgaard, L, Pedersen, L J, Ladewig, J and Matthews, L Prior deprivation and reward duration affect the demand function for rest in dairy heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science: in press.Google Scholar
Kirkden, R D, Edwards, J S S and Broom, D M 2003 A theoretical comparison of the consumer surplus and the elasticities of demand as measures of motivational strength. Animal Behaviour 65: 157–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladewig, J and Matthews, L 1996 The role of operant conditioning in animal welfare research. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 27: 64–68 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Ladewig, J, Sorensen, D B, Nielsen, P P and Matthews, L R 2002 The quantitative measurement of motivation: generation of demand functions under open versus closed economies. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, S E G 1978 The psychology and economics of demand. Psychological Bulletin SS: 441–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, S E G and Roper T, J 1977 Demand for food on fixed-ratio schedules as a function of the quality of concurrently available reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 27: 371–380CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, G, Cooper, J and Garner, J 1997 Models of motivational decision-making and how they affect the experimental assessment of motivational priorities. In: Forbes, J M, Lawrence, T L J, Rodway, R G and Varley, M A (eds) Animal Choices pp 9–18. British Society of Animal Science Occasional Publication No. 20. British Society of Animal Science: Penicuik, Scotland, UKGoogle Scholar
Mason, G, Garner, J and McFarland, D 1998b Assessing animal priorities: future directions. Animal Behaviour SS: 1082–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J, Cooper, J J and Clarebrough, C 2001 Frustrations of fur-farmed mink. Nature 410: 35–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, G, McFarland, D and Garner, J 1998a A demanding task: using economic techniques to assess animal priorities. Animal Behaviour SS: 1071–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, L R 1998 Using economic techniques to assess animal priorities: repays the investment. Animal Behaviour SS: 1076–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, L R and Ladewig, J 1994 Environmental requirements of pigs measured by behavioural demand functions. Animal Behaviour 47: 713–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, L R, Walker, J A, Foster T, M and Temple, W 1998 Influence of reward magnitude on elasticity of demand for dustbathing in hens. In: Veissier, I and Boissy, A (eds) Proceedings of the 32nd International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology p 86 (Abstract). Insitut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA): Clermont-Ferrand, FranceGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C J 1997 Environmental choices of farm animals. In: Forbes, J M, Lawrence, T L J, Rodway, R G and Varley, M A (eds) Animal Choices pp 35–45. British Society of Animal Science Occasional Publication No. 20. British Society of Animal Science: Penicuik, Scotland, UKGoogle 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
Pedersen, L J, Jensen, M B, Hansen, S W, Munksgaard, L, Ladewig, J and Matthews, L 2002a 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
Pedersen, L J, Jensen, M B and Ladewig, J 2002b Substitutability of different rooting material to pigs: assessed by the cross point between two demand functions. In: Koene, P and the Scientific Committee of the 36th Congress of the ISAE (eds) Proceedings of the 36th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology p 75 (Abstract). Paul Koene: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Petherick, J C and Rutter, M S 1990 Quantifying motivation using a computer-controlled push-door. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C M 1996 Laboratory mice persist in gaining access to resources: a method of assessing the importance of environmental features. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45: 203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C M 2003 Social context affects the motivation of laboratory mice, Mus musculus, to gain access to resources. Animal Behaviour 66: 649–655CrossRefGoogle 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
Sherwin, C M and Nicol, C J 1998 A demanding task: using economic techniques to assess animal priorities. A reply to Mason et al. Animal Behaviour SS: 1079–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, D B, Ladewig, J, Lawson, L G 2001a The influence of strain on demand functions for water in rats (Rattus norvegicus). Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal Science 25: 1–9Google Scholar
Sørensen, D B, Ladewig, J, Matthews, L, Ersbøl, A K and Lawson, L 2001b Measuring motivation: using the cross point of two demand functions as an assessment of the substitutability of two reinforcers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumpter, C E, Temple, W and Foster, M 1999 The transitivity of choices between different response requirements. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 72: 235–249CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warburton, H and Mason, G 2003 Is out of sight out of mind? The effects of resource cues on motivation in mink, Mustela vison. Animal Behaviour 65: 755–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warburton, H and Nicol, C J 2001 The relationship between behavioural priorities and animal welfare: a test using the laboratory mice, Mus musculus. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 30: 124–130 (Suppl)Google Scholar