Mild environmental aversion is detected by a discrete-choice preference testing method but not by a free-access method

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Volumn 134, Issue 3-4, 2011, Pages 152-163

  Browne, William J ^a   Caplen, Gina ^a   Statham, Poppy ^a   Nicol, Christine J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Animal welfare; Chicken; Control; Decision making; Environmental choice

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL WELFARE; DECISION MAKING; DETECTION METHOD; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; MOVEMENT; POULTRY; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; RISK ASSESSMENT; TESTING METHOD; TUNNEL;

ANIMALIA; HEXAPODA;

EID: 80053285196     PISSN: 01681591     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.07.004     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Abeyesinghe S.M., Nicol C.J., Hartnell S.J., Wathes C.M. Can domestic fowl Gallus gallus domesticus, show self-control?. Anim. Behav. 2005, 70:1-11.
2. Bacon I.E., Hurly T.A., Healy S. Both the past and the present affect risk-sensitive decisions of foraging rufous hummingbirds. Behav. Ecol. 2010, 21:626-632.
3. Bassett L., Buchanan-Smith H.M. Effects of predictability on the welfare of captive animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 102:223-245.
4. Browne W.J., Caplen G., Edgar J., Wilson L.R., Nicol C.J. Consistency, transitivity and inter-relationships between measures of choice in environmental preference tests with chickens. Behav. Proc. 2010, 83:72-78.
5. Cooper J.J., Albentosa M.J. Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian Poul. Biol. Rev. 2003, 14:127-149.
6. Dawkins M.S. Elusive concept of preferred group-size in laying hens. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1982, 8:365-375.
7. Dawkins M.S. Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological 'needs'. Anim. Behav. 1983, 31:1195-1205.
8. Dawkins M.S., Beardsley T. Reinforcing properties of access to litter in hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1986, 15:351-364.
9. Hanmer L.A., Riddell P.M., Williams C.M. Using a runway paradigm to assess the relative strength of rats' motivations for enrichment objects. Behav. Res. Meth. 2010, 42:517-524.
10. Hansen S.W., Jensen M.B., Pedersen L.J., Munksgaard L., Ladewig J., Matthews L. The type of operant response affects the slope of the demand curve for food in mink. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 76:327-338.
11. Holm L., Jensen M.B., Pedersen L.J., Ladewig J. The importance of a food feedback in rooting materials for pigs measured by double demand curves with and without a common scaling factor. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 111:68-84.
12. Houston A.I., McNamara J.M., Steer M.D. Do we expect natural selection to produce rational behaviour?. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2007, 362:1531-1543.
13. Hovland A.L., Mason G., Boe K.E., Steinheim G., Bakken M. Evaluation of the 'maximum price paid' as an index of motivational strength for farmed silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 100:258-279.
14. Hughes B.O. Behavioral wisdom and preference tests. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1977, 3:391-392.
15. Hughes B.O., Black A.J. Preference of domestic hens for different types of battery cage floor. Br. Poult. Sci. 1973, 14:615-619.
16. Kirkden R.D., Pajor E.A. Using preference, motivation and aversion tests to ask scientific questions about animals' feelings. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 100:29-47.
17. Koistinen T., Oriala H., Mononen J., Korhonen H.T. Position of operant cost affects blue foxes' time budget between sand floor and mesh floor. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 116:266-272.
18. Koolhaas J.M. Coping style and immunity in animals: making sense of individual variation. Brain Behav. Immun. 2008, 22:662-667.
19. Leslie T.K., Dalton L., Phillips C.J.C. Preference of domestic rabbits for grass or coarse mix feeds. Anim. Welf. 2004, 13:57-62.
20. Lindberg A.C., Nicol C.J. Space and density effects on group size preferences in laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 1996, 37:709-721.
21. Lindberg A.C., Nicol C.J. Effects of social and environmental familiarity on group preferences and spacing behaviour in laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1996, 49:109-123.
22. Nicol C.J., Caplen G., Edgar J., Browne W.J. Associations between welfare indicators and environmental choice in laying hens. Anim. Behav. 2009, 78:413-424.
23. Nicol C.J., Caplen G., Statham P., Browne W.J. Decisions about foraging and risk trade-offs in chickens are associated with individual somatic response profiles. Anim. Behav. 2011, 10.1016/j/anbehav.2011.04.022.
24. Pajor E.A., Rushen J., de Passillé A.M.B. Dairy cattle's choice of handling treatments in a Y-maze. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 80:93-107.
25. Rasbash J., Charlton C., Browne W.J., Healy M., Cameron B. MLwiN Version 2.1 2009, Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.
26. Scholz B., Urselmans S., Kjaer J.B., Schrader L. Food, wood, or plastic as substrates for dustbathing and foraging in laying hens: a preference test. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89:1584-1589.
27. Shields S.J., Garner J.P., Mench J.A. Dustbathing by broiler chickens: a comparison of preference for four different substrates. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004, 87:69-82.
28. Sørensen D., Hanse H., Krohn T., Bertelsen T. Preferences for limited versus no contact in SD rats. Lab. Anim. 2010, 44:274-277.
29. Sumpter C.E., Temple W., Foster T.M. The transitivity of choices between different response requirements. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1999, 72:235-249.
30. von Borstel U.U., Duncan I.J.H., Shoveller A.K., Merkies K., Keeling L.J., Millman S.T. Impact of riding in a coercively obtained Rollkur posture on welfare and fear of performance horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 116:228-236.
31. Warburton H.J., Nicol C.J. Position of operant costs affects visits to resources by laboratory mice, Mus musculus. Anim. Behav. 1998, 55:1325-1333.
32. Warburton H.J., Nicol C.J. The relationship between behavioural priorities and animal welfare: a test using the laboratory mouse, Mus musculus. Acta Agric. Scand. A: Anim. Sci. 2001, 30(Suppl.):124-130.
33. Williams C.M., Riddell P.M., Scott L.A. Comparison of preferences for object properties in the rat using paired- and free-choice paradigms. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 112:146-157.
34. Wolf B.T., Molloy H.R.B., Trayte M.J., Rose M.T. Behaviour of growing lambs housed on straw or woodchip bedding materials and their preference for floor type. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 124:45-50.
35. Young R.J., Macleod H.A., Lawrence A.B. Effect of manipulandum design on operant responding in pigs. Anim. Behav. 1994, 47:1488-1490.
36. Zotte A.D., Princz Z., Matics Z., Gerencser Z., Metzger S., Szendro Z. Rabbit preference for cages and pens with or without mirrors. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 116:273-278.