Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T22:40:10.098Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental choices of farm animals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

C J. Nicol
C J. Nicol*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DU
Get access

Abstract

To assess farm animal welfare we need to understand how animals make choices and how these choices relate to preference strength. Studies of environmental choice can be categorized by the method used to investigate them, or by the underlying basis on which the animal is choosing. Choices made between resources that vary along a single dimension should meet certain criteria e.g. those of transitivity. Choices made between resources that vary along more than one dimension may or may not meet these criteria, depending how the animal evaluates each option. Understanding how farm animals choose will allow the results of individual experiments to be applied in a wider context. It is also important to know how preferences are formed during development. Evidence suggests that preferences for nests and pecking substrates in hens may be influenced by prefunctional experience. Experimental data from studies of environmental choice may enable us either to provide important resources in commercial systems, or to provide facilities for animals to continue to make their own decisions.

Type
Research Article
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 20: Animal Choices , 1997 , pp. 35 - 43
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

Arey, D. S. 1992. Straw and food as reinforcers for prepartal sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arey, D. S. 1993. The preference of growing pigs for sloped or level floors. Farm Building Progress 114: 18–20.Google Scholar
Baldwin, B. A. 1979. Operant studies of the behaviour of pigs and sheep in relation to the physical environment. Journal of Animal Science 49: 1125–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, B. A. and Ingram, D. L. 1968. The effects of food intake and acclimatization to temperature on behavioural thermoregulation in pigs and mice. Physiology and Behavior 3: 395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beilharz, R. G. and Zeeb, K. 1981. Applied ethology and animal welfare. Applied Animal Ethology 7: 3–10.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, A. L. and Poling, A. 1991. Choice of rats for enriched versus standard home cages: plastic pipes, wood platforms, wood chips and paper towels as enrichment items. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 55: 245–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, J. J. and Nicol, C. J. 1991. Stereotypie behaviour affects environmental preference in bank voles, Clethrionomys glareolus. Animal Behaviour 41: 971–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. 1976. Towards an objective method of assessing welfare in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. 1980. Environmental preference studies in the hen. Animal Regulation Studies 3: 57–63.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. 1981. Priorities in the cage size and flooring preferences of domestic hens. British Poultry Science 22: 255–263.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. 1983. Cage size and flooring preferences in litter-reared and cage-reared hens. British Poultry Science 24: 177–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, I. J. H. and Kite, V. G. 1989. Nest site selection and nest-building behaviour in domestic fowls. Animal Behaviour 37: 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faure, J. 1994. Choice tests for space in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 89–94.Google Scholar
Fentress, J. C. 1976. Dynamic boundaries of patterned behaviour: interaction and self-organisation. In Grozving points in ethology (ed. Bateson, P. P. G. and Hinde, R. A.), pp. 136–169. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Foltin, R. W. 1991. An economic analysis of demand for food in baboons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 56: 445–454.Google Scholar
Gonyou, H. W. and Stookey, J. M. 1985. Behaviour of parturient ewes in group-lambing pens with and without cubicles. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T., Curtis, S. E., Widowski, T. M. and Thurmon, J. C. 1986. Electro-immobilisation versus mechanical restraint in an avoid-avoid choice test for ewes. Journal of Animal Science 62: 1469–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haskell, M. J. and Hutson, G. D. 1994. Factors affecting the choice of farrowing site in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 259–268.Google Scholar
Houston, A. I. 1996. Demand curves and welfare. Animal Behaviour In press.Google Scholar
Hughes, B. O. 1976. Preference decisions of the domestic hen for wire or litter floors. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B. O. and Black, A. J. 1973. The preference of domestic hens for different types of battery cage floor. British Poultry Science 14: 615–619.Google Scholar
Hughes, B. O., Petherick, J. C., Brown, M. F. and Waddington, D. 1995. Visual recognition of key nest site stimuli by laying hens in cages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 271–281.Google Scholar
Hutson, G. D. 1992. A comparison of Operant responding by farrowing sows for food and nest-building materials. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34: 221–230.Google Scholar
Hutson, G. D., Haskell, M. J., Dickenson, L. G. and Slinger, D. E. 1993. Preferences of pregnant sows for wet and dry concrete floors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 91–99.Google Scholar
Inglis, I. R. 1994. Testing for uni-dimensional scaling of stimuli used in preference experiments. Animal Welfare 3: 45–49.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. H., Bolhuis, J. J. and Horn, G. 1985. Interaction between acquired preferences and developing predispositions during imprinting. Animal Behaviour 33: 1000–1006.Google Scholar
Jones, J. B., Wathes, C. M. and Webster, A. J. F. 1997. Trade off between thermal comfort and pollutant (ammonia) exposure in pigs. 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. 106–108.Google Scholar
Jones, R. 1996. Access to a self-controlled thermal environment for growing pigs. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
Jones, R. and Nicol, C. J. 1994. The importance to mice of having control over lighting within their environment. Proceedings of the 28th international congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Foulum, Denmark, p. 156 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Kilgour, R., Foster, T. M., Temple, W., Matthews, L. R. and Bremner, K. J. 1991. Operant technology applied to solving farm animal problems. An assessment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 141–166.Google Scholar
Lagadic, H. and Faure, J. 1987. Preferences of domestic hens for cage size and floor types as measured by operant conditioning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 147–155.Google Scholar
McAdie, T. M., Foster, T. M. and Temple, W. 1996. Concurrent schedules — quantifying the aversiveness of noise. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 65: 37–55.Google Scholar
McGonigle, B. and Chalmers, M. 1992. Monkeys are rational! Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 45B: 189–228.Google Scholar
Mason, G., Cooper, J. and Garner, J. 1997. Models of decision making and how they affect the experimental assessment of motivational priorities. 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. 9–17.Google Scholar
Matthews, L. R., Temple, W., Foster, T. M. and McAdie, T. M. 1993. Quantifying the environmental requirements of layer hens by behavioural demand functions. Proceedings of the 27th international congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Berlin, pp. 206–209.Google Scholar
Morrison, W. D., Laforest, K. L. and McMillan, I. 1989. Effects of group size on operant heat demand of piglets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 69: 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mount, L. E. 1963. Environmental temperature preferred by the young pig. Nature 199: 1212–1213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, C. J. 1986. Non-exclusive spatial preference in the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 337–350.Google Scholar
O’Connell, J. M., Meaney, W. J. and Giller, P. S. 1991. An evaluation of four cubicle designs using cattle behaviour criteria. Irish Veterinary Journal 44: 8–13.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C., Seawright, E. and Waddington, D. 1993. Influence of motivational state on choice of food or a dustbathing/foraging substrate by domestic hens. Behavioural Processes 28: 209–220.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C., Seawright, E. and Waddington, D. 1994. Influence of quantity of litter on nest box selection and nesting behaviour of domestic hens. British Poultry Science 34: 857–872.Google Scholar
Phillips, P. A., Fraser, D. and Thompson, B. K. 1992. Sow preference for farrowing-crate width. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72: 745–750.Google Scholar
Pollard, J. C., Littlejohn, R. P. and Suttie, J. M. 1994. Responses of red deer to restraint in a y-maze preference test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39:63–71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, A. B. M. 1996. Aversive reactions of turkeys to argon, carbon dioxide and a mixture of carbon-dioxide and argon. Veterinary Record 138: 592–593.Google Scholar
Rook, A. J., Penning, P. D. and Rutter, S. M. 1997. Limitations of palatability as a concept in food intake and diet selection studies. 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. 75–76.Google Scholar
Rushen, J. 1986a. Aversion of sheep to electroimmobilisation and physical restraint. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 315–324.Google Scholar
Rushen, J. 1986b. Aversion of sheep for handling treatments: paired-choice studies. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 363–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanotra, G. S., Vestergaard, K. S., Agger, J. F. and Lawson, L. G. 1995. The relative preferences for feathers, straw, wood-shavings and sand for dustbathing, pecking and scratching in domestic chicks. Applied Aiiimal Behaviour Science 43: 263–277.Google Scholar
Shafir, S. 1994. Intransitivity of preferences in honey bees: support for ‘comparative’ evaluation of foraging options. Animal Behaviour 48: 55–67.Google Scholar
Sherwin, C. M. and Nicol, C. J. 1993. Factors influencing floor-laying by hens in modified cages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36: 211–222.Google Scholar
Sherwin, C. M. and Nicol, C. J. 1996. Reorganization of behaviour in laboratory mice, Mus musculus, with varying cost of access to resources. Animal Behaviour 51: 1087–1093.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1951. The study of instinct. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wiepkema, P. R. and Koolhaas, J. M. 1993. Stress and animal welfare. Animal Welfare 2: 195–218.Google Scholar