Measuring animal preferences: Shape of double demand curves and the effect of procedure used for varying workloads on their cross-point

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Volumn 107, Issue 1-2, 2007, Pages 133-146

  Holm, Louise ^a   Ritz, Christian ^a   Ladewig, Jan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Behavioural economics; Demand curves; Drinking water; Preference; Rats

Indexed keywords

DRINKING WATER; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; MEASUREMENT METHOD; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; RODENT;

ANIMALIA; RATTUS;

EID: 34548411854     PISSN: 01681591     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.09.021     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Blom H.J.M., Baumans V., van Vorstenbosch C.J.A.H.V., van Zutphen L.F.M., and Beynen A.C. Preference tests with rodents to assess housing conditions. Anim. Welf. 2 (1993) 81-87
2. Broom D.M. The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 20 (1988) 5-19
3. Dawkins M.S. Do hens suffer in battery cages? Environmental preferences and welfare. Anim. Behav. 25 (1977) 1034-1046
4. Dawkins M.S. Behavioural deprivation: a central problem in animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 20 (1988) 209-225
5. Dawkins M.S. From an animal's point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behav. Brain Sci. 13 (1990) 1-61
6. Dumont B., Dutronc A., and Petit M. How readily will sheep walk for a preferred forage?. J. Anim. Sci. 76 (1998) 965-971
7. Duncan I.J.H. Animal rights-animal welfare: a scientist's assessment. Poult. Sci. 60 (1981) 489-499
8. Duncan I.J.H. Measuring preferences and the strength of preferences. Poult. Sci. 71 (1992) 658-663
9. Forkman B. Some problems with current patch-choice theory: a study on the Mongolian gerbil. Behaviour 117 (1991) 244-254
10. Forkman B. The foraging behaviour of Mongolian gerbils: a behavioural need or a need to know?. Behaviour 133 (1996) 129-143
11. Holm L., Jensen M.B., and Jeppesen L.L. Calves' motivation for two different types of social contact measured by operant conditioning. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 79 (2002) 175-194
12. Hursh S.R. Behavioural economics of drug self-administration: an introduction. Drug Alcohol Depend. 33 (1993) 165-172
13. Hutson G.D. Animal welfare and consumer demand theory: are preference tests a luxury we can't afford?. Anim. Behav. 32 (1984) 1260-1261
14. Illius A.W., Gordon I.J., Elston D.A., and Milne J.D. Diet selection in goats: a test of intake-rate maximization. Ecology 80 (1999) 1008-1018
15. Inglis I.R. Starlings search for food rather than eat freely available, identical food. Anim. Behav. 34 (1986) 614-616
16. Jensen M.B. Effects of confinement on rebounds of locomotor behaviour of calves and heifers, and the spatial preferences of calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 62 (1999) 43-56
17. Koistinen, T., 2003. Development of the Double Demand Function Method for the Quantitative Measurement of Substitutability of Different Types of Water in Rats. Master's Thesis. Applied Zoology, Institute of Applied Biotechnology, Finland.
18. Krebs R., Kacelnik A., and Taylor P. Test of optimal sampling by foraging great tits. Nature 275 (1978) 27-31
19. Ladewig J., and Matthews L.R. Housing requirements of pigs measured by behavioural demand functions. Pigs News Info. 17 (1996) 129N-131N
20. ® System for Mixed Models (1996), SAS Institute, NC
21. Matthews L.R., and Ladewig J. Environmental requirement of pigs measured by behavioural demand functions. Anim. Behav. 47 (1994) 713-719
22. Neuringer A.J. Many responses per food reward with free food present. Science 169 (1970) 503-504
23. Nielsen O.K., Ritz C., and Streibig J.C. Nonlinear mixed-model regression to analyze herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 18 (2004) 30-37
24. Patterson-Kane E.G., Harper D.N., and Hunt M. The cage preferences of laboratory rats. Lab. Anim. 35 (2001) 74-79
25. Pedersen L.J., Holm L., Jensen M.B., and Jørgensen E. The strength of pigs' preferences for different rooting materials measured using concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 94 (2005) 31-48
26. Prache S., Bechet G., and Damasceno J.C. Diet choice in grazing sheep: A new approach to investigate the relationship between preferences and intake-rate on a daily time scale. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 99 (2006) 253-270
27. Press W.H., Flannery B.P., Teukolsky S.A., and Veterling W.T. Numerical Recipes in C. 2nd ed. (1992), Cambridge University Press pp. 353-354
28. Ritz, C., 2004. Standard errors for cross points (note). The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark, Unpublished.
29. Rosenzweig M.R., and Bennett E.L. Psychobiology of plasticity: effects of training and experience on brain and behaviour. Behav. Brain Res. 78 (1996) 57-65
30. Scalera G. Taste preference and acceptance in thirsty and dehydrated rats. Physiol. Behav. 71 (2000) 457-468
31. Shettleworth S.J. Cognition, Evolution, and Behaviour (1998), Oxford University Press
32. Stephens D.W., and Krebs J.R. Foraging Theory (1986), Princeton University Press
33. Sørensen, D.B., 2001. Evaluating Animal Welfare: Assessing the Substitutability of two Environmental Factors by use of Operant Conditioning. Ph.D. Thesis. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark.
34. Sørensen D.B., Ladewig J., Matthews L., Ersbøll A.K., and Lawson L. Measuring motivation: using the cross point of two demand functions as an assessment of the substitutability of two reinforcers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 74 (2001) 281-291
35. Sørensen D.B., Ladewig J., and Lawson L. The influence of strain on demand functions for water in rats (Rattus norvegicus). Scand. J. Lab. Anim. Sci. 28 (2001) 1-9
36. Sørensen D.B., Ladewig J., Ersbøll A.K., and Matthews L. Using the cross point of demand functions to assess animal priorities. Anim. Behav. 68 (2004) 949-955