Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T12:10:25.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methods for Measuring Feeding Motivation in Sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

R E Jackson ,
N K Waran  and
M S Cockram
R E Jackson*
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, School of Agriculture Building, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3 JG, UK
N K Waran
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, School of Agriculture Building, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3 JG, UK
M S Cockram
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Veterinary Field Station, Easter Bush, Roslin EH25 9RG, UK
*
† Contact address for correspondence and request for reprints: Department of Preclinical Veterinary Sciences, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Summerhall, Edinburgh EH9 1QH, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of food restriction on the welfare of sheep are as yet unclear. An operant crate and a push-door were used to measure feeding motivation in sheep after Oh, 6h, 12h, 18h and 24h without food. In experiment 1, sheep had to push a panel with their noses to obtain a food reward. In experiment 2, sheep had to run a race and push through a weighted door to reach food; the time taken to reach various points was recorded and the work performed to push through the door was calculated.

In experiment 1, 3 out of 12 sheep became trained to push the panel and there was a difference in the mean number of rewards/session obtained by each animal (P < 0.05). There was no effect of treatment on the number of panel presses performed. In experiment 2, 10 out of 14 sheep were successfully trained. More sheep went through the push-door when deprived of food (P < 0.05), and they were quicker to enter the race, reach the push-door, and reach the food than those which had not been deprived (P < 0.0001). They also spent less time pushing the door than non-deprived sheep (P < 0.0001).

The push-door was a more appropriate method of measuring motivation to feed in sheep, as more sheep learned the task in less time than for the operant crate. As measured by the time taken to enter the race, reach the push-door, push through the door and reach the food there was an increase in feeding motivation after only 6h without food.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourfood deprivationsheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , February 1999 , pp. 53 - 63
Copyright
© 1999 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Abbott, A F 1978 Ordinary Level Physics, 3rd edition. Heinemann Educational Books: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Blisset, M J, Bland, K P and Cottrell, D F 1990 Olfactory and vomeronasal chemoreception and the discrimination of oestrus and non-oestrus ewe odours by the ram. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breland, K and Breland, M 1961 The misbehaviour of organisms. American Psychologist 16: 681–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burritt, E A and Provenza, F D 1997 Effect of unfamiliar location on the consumption of novel and familiar foods by sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 317–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockram, M S, Kent, J E, Goddard, P J, Waran, N K, McGilp, I M, Jackson, R E, Muwanga, G M and Prytherch, S 1996 Effect of space allowance during transport on the behavioural and physiological responses of lambs during and after transport. Animal Science 62: 461–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockram, M S, Kent, J E, Jackson, R E, Goddard, P J, Doherty, O M, McGilp, I M, Fox, A, Studdert-Kennedy, T C, McConnell, T I and O'Riordan, T 1997 Effect of lairage during 24h of transport on the behavioural and physiological responses of sheep. Animal Science 65: 391–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1983 Battery hens name their price: Consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs’. Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal's point of view: motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 13: 1–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Done-Currie, J R, Hecker, J F and Wodzicka-Tomaszewska, A M 1984 Behaviour of sheep transferred from pasture to an animal house. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12: 121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, B and Petit, M 1995 An indoor method for studying the preferences of sheep and cattle at pasture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 67–80Google Scholar
Duncan, I J H, Horne, A R, Hughes, B O and Wood-Gush, D G M 1970 The pattern of food intake in female brown leghorn fowls as recorded in a Skinner Box. Animal Behaviour 18: 245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Hughes, B O 1972 Free and operant feeding in domestic fowls. Animal Behaviour 20: 775–777Google ScholarPubMed
Duncan, I J H and Kite, V G 1987 Some investigations into motivation in the domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 387–388 (Abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Council 1995 Council Directive 95/29/EC of June 1995 amending Directive 91/629/EC concerning the protection of animals during transport. Official Journal of the European Communities L 148: 52–63Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1994 Report on the Welfare of Sheep. MAFF: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, L and Stepanski, E J 1994 A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Univariate and Multivariate Statistics. SAS Institute Inc: Cary, USAGoogle Scholar
Knowles, T G, Warriss, P D, Brown, S N, Kestin, S C, Rhind, S M, Edwards, J E, Anil, M H and Dolan, S K 1993 Long distance transport of lambs and the time needed for subsequent recovery. Veterinary Record 133: 286–293CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, A B, Appleby, M C, Illius, A W and MacLeod, H A 1989 Measuring hunger in the pig using operant conditioning: The effect of dietary bulk. Animal Production 48: 213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, A B, Appleby, M C and MacLeod, H A 1988 Measuring hunger in the pig using operant conditioning: The effect of food restriction. Animal Production 47: 131–137Google Scholar
Lawrence, A B and Illius, A W 1989 Methodology for measuring hunger and food needs using operant conditioning in the pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 273–285Google Scholar
Lynch, J J Hinch, G N and Adams, D B The Behaviour of Sheep. Biological Principles and Implications for Production. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Miller, NE 1955 Shortcomings of food consumption as a measure of hunger: results from other behavioural techniques. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 63: 141–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrott, R F, Houpt, K A and Misson, B H 1988 Modification of the responses of sheep to isolation stress by the use of mirror panels. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 331–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherick, J C and Rutter, S M 1990 Quantifying motivation using a computer-controlled push-door. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teitelbaum, P 1966 The use of operant methods in the assessment and control of motivational states. In: Honig, W K (ed) Operant Behaviour. Areas of Research and Application pp 565–508. Appleton-Century-Crofts: New York, USAGoogle Scholar