Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:36:36.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Engineering choices into animal environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

C. M. Wathes
C. M. Wathes*
Affiliation:
Silsoe Research Institute, Bio-Engineering Division, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford MK45 4HS
Get access

Abstract

The means by which choice can be engineered into farm animal environments are described, focusing upon intensive systems of husbandry where choices are the most limited. Choice is assumed to be both necessary and desirable.

The principal components of choice are: (i) environmental choice; (ii) nutritional choice; and (iii) social choice. The management of herds rather than individuals and the persistent trend towards increased intensification generally reduces the opportunities for animals to exercise their environmental and social choices. However, extensive systems can also restrict choice and provide an environment that may, in some cases, be equally barren.

Several common problems may make the provision of choice difficult, including variability and precision of individual choices and the conflicts between the interests of individual animals (as distinct from groups) and farmers themselves.

The availability of choice can be improved by modifying existing systems or developing new systems of livestock husbandry. The choice of physical environments may be made by self selection by an individual animal in a heterogeneous environment; active animal control of an environmental modifier, or automatic control with continual monitoring of physiological and behavioural states. The enrichment of barren environments could also embrace artificial stimulation of the senses. Improving the choice of space for its many social and other uses is likely to be difficult given the financial constraints of livestock husbandry. There are few technical difficulties to improving nutritional choices available to livestock, e.g. automated feeding systems which provide multiple rations.

Type
Research Article
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 20: Animal Choices , 1997 , pp. 67 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alsam, H. and Wathes, C. M. 1991. Thermal preferences of chicks brooded at different air temperatures. British Poultry Science 32: 917–927.Google Scholar
Baldwin, B. A. 1979. Operant studies on the behaviour of pigs and sheep in relation to the physical environment. Journal of Animal Science 49: 1125–1134.Google Scholar
Barfield, W. and Danas, E. 1996. Comments on the use of olfactory displays for virtual environments. Presence 5: 109–121.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. R. 1991. Development of systems for improved welfare — pig housing. In Farm animals: it pays to be humane (ed. Carruthers, S. P.), pp. 106–114. Centre for Agricultural Strategy, Reading.Google Scholar
Charles, D. R. 1994. Comparative climatic requirements. In Livestock housing (ed. Wathes, C. M. and Charles, D. R.), pp. 3–24. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Curtis, S. E. and Morris, G. L. 1982. Operant supplemental heat in swine nurseries. In Proceedings of the second international livestock environment symposium, pp. 295–297. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Frost, A. R., Schofield, C. P., Beaulah, S. A., Mottram, T. T., Lines, J. A. and Wathes, C. M. 1997. A review of livestock monitoring and the need for integrated systems. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture In press.Google Scholar
Gannon, M. A. 1996. The energy balance of pigs outdoors. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Jones, J. B., Burgess, L. R., Webster, A. J. F. and Wathes, C. M. 1996. Behavioural responses of pigs to atmospheric ammonia in a chronic choice test. Animal Science 63: 437–445.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. 1997. The nutritional choices of farm animals: to eat or what to eat? In Animal choices (ed. Forbes, J. M., Lawrence, T. L. J., Rodway, R. G. and Varley, M. A.), British Society of Animal Science occasional publication no. 20, pp. 55–65.Google Scholar
Mendl, M. and Erhard, H. W. 1997. Social choices of farm animals: to fight or not to fight? In Animal choices (ed. Forbes, J. M., Lawrence, T. L. J., Rodway, R. G. and Varley, M. A.), British Society of Animal Science occasional publication no. 20, pp. 45–53.Google Scholar
Morrison, W. D., Bate, L. A., Amyot, E. and McMillan, I. 1987. Performance of large groups of chicks using Operant conditioning to control the thermal environment. Poultry Science 66: 1758–1761.Google Scholar
Mottram, T. T. 1992a. Design and management of automatic milking systems. Part I. Agricultural Engineer 47: 87–90.Google Scholar
Mottram, T. T. 1992b. Design and management of automatic milking systems. Part II. Agricultural Engineer 47: 115–118.Google Scholar
Mclnerney, J. P., Howe, K. S. and Schepers, J. A. 1992. A framework for the economic analysis of disease in farm livestock. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 13: 137–154.Google Scholar
Nicol, C. J. 1994. Behaviour and welfare. In Livestock housing (ed. Wathes, C. M. and Charles, D. R.), pp. 69–93. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Nicol, C. J. 1997. Environmental choices of farm animals. In Animal choices (ed. Forbes, J. M., Lawrence, T. L. J., Rodway, R. G. and Varley, M. A.), British Society of Animal Science occasional publication no. 20, pp. 35–43.Google Scholar
Patterson-Kane, E., Nicol, C. J., Foster, T. M. and Temple, W. 1995. The perception of video images by laying hens. In Proceedings of the 29th international congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology (ed. Rutter, S. M., Rushen, J., Randle, H. D. and Eddison, J. C.), pp. 39–40. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, South Mimms.Google Scholar
Prescott, N. B. 1996. Dairy cow behaviour and automatic milking. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
Randall, J. M. and Boon, C. R. 1994. Ventilation control and systems. In Livestock housing (ed. Wathes, C. M. and Charles, D. R.), pp. 149–182. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. F., Wilson, D. and Smith, W. J. 1990. Atrophie rhinitis: the influence of the aerial environment. Animal Production 50: 173–182.Google Scholar
Smith, A. T. 1994. Pig housing. In Livestock housing (ed. Wathes, C. M. and Charles, D. R.), pp. 273–304. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Wathes, C. M. 1993. Animals in man’s environment: a question of interest. In Proceedings of the fourth international livestock environment symposium, Warwick, pp. 1255–1266. American Society of Agricultural Engineers.Google Scholar
Wathes, C. M., Holden, M. R., Sneath, R. W., White, R. P. and Phillips, V. R. 1997. Concentrations and emission rates of aerial ammonia, nitrous oxide, methane, carbon dioxide, dust and endotoxin in UK broiler and layer houses. British Poultry Science In press.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1995. Animal welfare. A cool eye towards Eden. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
Young, R. J., Carruthers, J. and Lawrence, A. B. 1994. The effect of a foraging device (the ‘Edinburgh foodball’) on the behaviour of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 237–247.Google Scholar