Shuttle and one-way avoidance as measures of aversion in the domestic fowl

A Continuous-Choice Assessment of the Domestic Fowl's Aversion to Concurrent Transport Stressors

Characterisation of the effect of transport on the welfare of fowl requires common currency methods that can compare the effects of diverse stressors using the same unit of measure. Aversion of broiler chickens (42 ± 1 days old) to vibrational and thermal stressors was investigated in a continuous free-choice procedure. Each choice-chamber had four compartments, connected via a central zone, offering a thermal stressor (T: 40°C, relative humidity 21%), a vibrational stressor (V: 2 Hz, 1 ms−2), concurrent vibrational and thermal stressors (VT), or no applied stressors (N). In experiment 1, there were no significant effects of stressor on the latency to leave the compartments after initial introduction (n = 24). In experiment 2, 12 subjects were introduced individually to a chamber for 4 h during each of a control and two treatment sessions. The results indicated that chickens did not avoid vibration, but significantly avoided the thermal stressor overall (T and VT; P < 0.001). As no interactive effect of the stressors was observed, all avoidance of the combined stressors can be attributed to the effects of the thermal stressor alone. Further work is required to establish ways in which delayed stressors can be studied using behavioural methods before common currency methods can be practicable.

The aversion of broiler chickens to concurrent vibrational and thermal stressors

The requirement for assessing the effects of multiple concurrent stressors in improving the welfare of broiler chickens during transport has not been widely recognised. A discrete-choice technique was used to investigate the aversion of broiler chickens to concurrent vibrational and thermal transport stressors. In experiment 1, 12 female broiler chickens, aged 42+/-3 days were studied individually using two choice-chambers. Each chamber had four compartments connected via a central zone and offered four treatments; thermal (T: air temperature; 40 degrees C, 21% RH), vibrational (V: frequency; 2Hz, acceleration; 1ms(-2)), concurrent vibrational and thermal (VT) and no applied stressors (N). Coloured compartment wall panels, allocated at random, assisted chickens' identification of compartments. Birds were fasted overnight and were required to make five consecutive choices on each of four consecutive days. A choice was defined as entering a compartment and feeding (5g pellets), whereupon confinement for 60min was initiated. Choices were totalled over all birds and analysed using a log-linear generalised linear model. The vibration was significantly avoided (V and VT versus N and T; P<0.05) but the thermal stressor was not (T and VT versus N and V; P>0.05) and there was no interaction. In experiment 2, the procedure was repeated with 12 more birds and modifications to increase method sensitivity and maximise bird learning. Choices were more disparate than before with vibration avoided to a greater extent (V and VT versus T and N; P<0.01) but there was still no main effect of the thermal treatment or a significant interaction. Substantial differences between individuals were observed in both experiments. The overall response to vibration supported previous findings for short-term exposure, however, non-avoidance of the thermal treatment was unexpected. Possibly, the birds were unable to associate the delayed heat stress with the compartment. Alternatively, the thermal conditions were not perceived as aversive either initially or throughout the 60min confinement. The preference method provides a useful starting point for assessing combinations of stressors which affect broiler welfare, allowing relative ranking of treatments from an animal-centred perspective.

Aversion learning techniques to evaluate dairy cattle handling practices

Fear of humans is a source of stress for Holstein dairy cattle and can result when animals are handled aversively. We used aversion learning techniques to determine which handling practices cattle find most aversive. In an aversion race, the cows are repeatedly walked down a race and treatments applied when they reached the end; the time and force required for cows to walk down the race are measured. The animal learns to associate walking down the race with the treatment received; if the treatment is aversive, the animal will take more time and require more force to reach the end of the race than if the treatment is positive. In experiment 1, 54 cows were assigned to four treatments (hit/shout, brushing, control, and food). Treatments of 2-min duration were applied three times a day for 4 days. Cows on the hit/shout treatment took more time and required more force to walk through the race than cows on other treatments, while brushed cows took longer to move through the race than cows given food. In experiment 2, 60 cows were assigned to five treatments (electric prod, shouting, hitting, tail twist, and control). Treatments of 1-min duration were applied three times a day for 3 days. Cows on the shout and electric prod treatments took more time and required more force to walk down the race than cows on the control treatment. In experiment 3, thirty-six 1-1.5-year-old heifers were assigned to three treatments (hand feeding, gentling, or control) applied as in experiment 2. Treatments did not affect the time or force required to walk down the race. The aversion race successfully discriminated between handling treatments that differ greatly in aversiveness but lacked sensitivity to distinguish between treatments that were similar. Although many procedural factors must be considered, aversion learning techniques are an effective method to determine which handling practices cattle find aversive or rewarding.

Behavior and behavioral needs

An understanding of behavior is important in any consideration of poultry welfare. Behavior is a good indicator of states of suffering such as fear, frustration, and pain. It might also be possible to use social interactions as indicators of welfare. The possibility of using "luxury" behavior, such as play and exploratory behavior, as an indicator of positive emotional states, requires investigation. Important welfare consequences arise from the fact that some behavior may be so strongly motivated as to constitute a "need". A behavioral need will arise in the case of behavior, such as nesting, that is controlled largely by internal factors, because these factors will be present no matter what type of environment is provided. Behavior triggered largely by external stimuli, such as responses to predators, will not give rise to a need if the external factors can be removed from the environment. Dustbathing is an example of behavior controlled by complex interactions between internal and external factors; the extent to which this constitutes a need is still being debated. If a behavioral need arises, then it is important that the environment provided allows it to be performed without damage to the performer or other birds. It should also be remembered that birds may need to perform behavior, including appetitive as well as consummatory elements, although the functional consequences of these are no longer required for survival. Finally, the performance of certain behavior leads to an increase in health or physical condition that improves welfare later in life.

Measuring preferences and the strength of preferences

In this review, it is argued that welfare concerns what animals feel. Preference tests give a good first indication of how animals feel and are therefore extremely valuable in animal welfare studies. Methods of overcoming the shortcomings of preference tests are discussed. In order that the results from preference tests be interpreted properly, they should be followed up with appropriate tests to measure the strength of preference. Examples of research in this area that have focused on poultry are given.