Advertisement

The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 87–95 | Cite as

Behavior Analysis and Farm Animal Welfare

  • T. Mary Foster
  • William Temple
  • Alan Poling
Article

Abstract

This article demonstrates that there is a role for behavior-analytic techniques in the area of farm animal welfare and provides examples of the kinds of work that can be done. Behavior-analytic procedures, specifically those used in the study of psychophysics, preference, and demand, can provide answers to three questions people concerned with the welfare of farm animals are likely to ask: What can the animals detect? What do they like and dislike? What will they work to attain or preserve? Such information certainly is necessary for making reasonable decisions about animal welfare, although it is not sufficient in and of itself.

Key words

animal welfare psychophysics preference demand farm animals 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Appleby, M. S., Hughes, E. O., & Elson, H. A. (1992). Poultry production systems: Behaviour, management and welfare. Oxford: C.A.B. International.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin, B. A. (1983). Operant conditioning in farm animals and its relevance to welfare. In D. Smidt (Ed.), Indicators relevant to farm animal welfare (pp. 117–120). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin, B. A., & Ingram, D. L. (1967). Behavioural thermoregulation in pigs. Physiology and Behavior, 2, 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin, B. A., & Ingram, D. L. (1968). Factors influencing behavioral thermoregulation in pigs. Physiology and Behavior, 3, 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231–242.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Baum, W. M. (1979). Matching, undermatching and overmatching in studies of choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 269–281.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Blough, D. S. (1966). The study of animal sensory processes by operant methods. In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 345–379). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  8. Blough, D. S., & Blough, P. (1977). Animal psychophysics. In W. E. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 514–539). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Brambell, F. W. R. (Chairman). (1965). Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive husbandry systems. Command Paper 2836. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
  10. Davison, M. C., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Dawkins, M. S. (1977). Do hens suffer in battery cages? Environmental preference and welfare. Animal Behaviour, 25, 1034–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawkins, M. S. (1982). Elusive concept of preferred group-size in domestic hens. Applied Animal Ethology, 8, 365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawkins, M. S. (1983). The current status of preference tests in the assessment of animal welfare. In S. H. Baxter, M. R. Baxter, & J. A. C. McCormack (Eds.), Farm animal welfare and housing (pp. 20–26). The Hague: Martinus Nyhoff.Google Scholar
  14. Dawkins, M. S. (1990). From an animal’s point of view: Motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawkins, M. S., & Beardsley, T. (1986). Reinforcing properties of access to litter in hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 15, 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Villiers, P. A. (1977). Choice in concurrent schedules and a quantitative formulation of the law of effect. In W. E. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 233–287). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Duncan, I. J. H. (1978). The interpretation of preference tests in animal behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology, 4, 197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duncan, I. J. H. (1981). Animal rights—animal welfare: A scientist’s assessment. Poultry Science, 60, 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duncan, I. J. H., & Kite, V. G. (1987). Some investigations into motivation in the domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 18, 387–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Faure, J.-M. (1986). Operant determination of the cage and feeder size preferences of the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 15, 325–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischer, G. J. (1975). The behaviour of chickens. In E. S. E. Hafez (Ed.), The behaviour of domestic animals (pp. 454–489). London: Balliére Tindall.Google Scholar
  22. Foster, T. M., Temple, W., Cameron, B., & Poling, A. (1997). Demand curves for food in hens: Similarity under fixed-ratio and progressive-ratio schedules. Behavioural Processes, 39, 177–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Foster, T. M., Temple, W., Nair, V., Robertson, B., & Poling, A. (1996). Concurrent-schedule performance of dairy cows: Persistent under-matching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 57–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Fraser, A. F., & Broom, D. M. (1990). Farm animal behavior and welfare. London: Balliére Tindall.Google Scholar
  25. Geller, E. S. (1991). Where’s the validity in social validity? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 353–358.Google Scholar
  26. Hall, W. F. (1984). The behavior and welfare of farm animals. Minneapolis: Humane Information Services.Google Scholar
  27. Hou, S., Boone, M. A., & Long, J. T. (1975). An electrophysiological study on the hearing and vocabulation in Gallus domesticus. Poultry Science, 52, 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hughes, B. O., & Black, A. J. (1973). The preference of domestic hens for different types of battery cage floor. British Poultry Science, 65, 9–18.Google Scholar
  29. Hursh, S. R. (1980). Economic concepts for the analysis of behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 219–238.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Hursh, S. R. (1984). Behavioral economics. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 435–452.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Hursh, S. R. (1991). Behavioral economics of drug self-administration and drug abuse policy. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 377–393.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Hursh, S. R., Raslear, T. G., Bauman, R., & Black, H. (1989). The quantitative analysis of economic behavior with laboratory animals. In K. G. Gruneit & F. Olander (Eds.), Understanding economic behavior (Theory and Decision Library, Series A, Vol. 2, pp. 383–407). Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hursh, S. R., & Winger, G. (1995). Normalized demand for drugs and other reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 373–384.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Assessing the clinical or applied significance of behavior change through social validation. Behavior Modification, 1, 427–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kilgour, R. (1976). The contributions of psychology to a knowledge of farm animal behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology, 2, 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kilgour, R., Foster, T. M., Temple, W., Matthews, L. R., & Bremner, K. J. (1991). Operant technology applied to solving farm animal problems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 30, 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kilgour, R., Matthews, L. R., Temple, W., & Foster, T. M. (1984). Using operant test results for decisions on cattle welfare. In W. F. Hall (Ed.), The behavior and welfare of farm animals (pp. 205–217). Minneapolis: Humane Information Services.Google Scholar
  38. Klopfer, F. D., Kilgour, R., & Matthews, L. R. (1981). Paired comparison analysis of payabilities of twenty foods to dairy cows. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production, 41, 242–247.Google Scholar
  39. Lindberg, A. C., & Nichol, C. J. (1996). Space and density effects on group size preferences in laying hens. British Poultry Science, 37, 709–721.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mackenzie, J., Foster, T. M., & Temple, W. (1993). Sound avoidance by hens. Behavioural Processes, 38, 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Matthews, L. R. (1983). Measurement and scaling of food preferences in dairy cows. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  42. Matthews, L. R., & Ladewig, J. (1994). Environmental requirements of pigs measured by behavioural demand functions. Animal Behaviour, 47, 713–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Matthews, L. R., & Temple, W. (1979). Concurrent schedule assessment of food preference in cows. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 245–254.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. McAdie, T. M., Foster, T. M., & Temple, W. (1996). Concurrent schedules: Quantifying the aversiveness of noise. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 37–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. McAdie, T. M., Foster, T. M., Temple, W., & Matthews, L. R. (1993). A method for measuring the aversiveness of sounds to domestic hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 37, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Robinson, D. (1993). Poultry welfare—or human debacle. Proceedings of the Ninth Australian Poultry and Feed Convention. Queensland, Australia: Australian Poultry Industries Association.Google Scholar
  47. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. Skinner, B. F (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  49. Temple, W. (1994). A review of research into the welfare of hens in various housing and management systems for egg production. Canberra, Australia: Working Group on Hen Housing.Google Scholar
  50. Temple, W., & Foster, T. M. (1980). Applications of preference assessment in animal welfare. In M. Wodzicka-Tomaszewska, T. N. Edey, & J. J. Lynch (Eds.), Behaviour in relation to reproduction, management and welfare (pp. 191–193). 4th Review of Rural Science. New South Wales, Australia: University of New England.Google Scholar
  51. Temple, W., Foster, T. M., & O’Donnell, C. S. (1984). Behavioural estimates of auditory thresholds in hens. British Poultry Science, 25, 487–493.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Walker, J. A. (1996). Concurrent schedules: A method for measuring social preferences of hens. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  53. Webster, A. J. F., & Nichol, C. J. (1988). The case for welfare. In Cages for the future (pp. 11–21). Cambridge: ADAS.Google Scholar
  54. Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–215.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA

Personalised recommendations