Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:52:30.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Value of Environmental Resources to Domestic Hens: A Comparison of the Work-Rate for Food and for Nests as a Function of Time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

J J Cooper  and
M C Appleby
J J Cooper*
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
M C Appleby
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: jcooper@lincoln.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Twelve Isa Brown hens (Gallus gallus domesticus) were trained to open a locked door for access to a pen containing an enclosed nest box (‘nest test’) and to return to a home pen containing food, water, litter and a perch (‘home test’). The door was connected to a computer-controlled load cell, which recorded work exerted on the door and unlocked the door when the hen had exceeded a predetermined workload. Following training, the workload was set at 10 Ns, and hens received one nest test per day at 80, 60, 40 or 20 min prior to oviposition, and then one home test per day after 1, 2, 3 or 4 h confinement in the nest pen. As oviposition approached, hens showed a higher work-rate for access to the nest pen, showed a shorter latency to use the nest box and spent a greater proportion of their visit time in the nest box. Hens also worked harder for the home pen, showed a lower latency to feed and spent more time feeding after their return as period of confinement increased. The hens’ work-rate for the nest pen at 40 min prior to oviposition was comparable with their work-rate for the home pen after 4 h confinement, while their work-rate was at its highest in nest tests at 20 min prior to oviposition. The technique appears to be a valid means of assessing the importance of environmental resources, the values of which vary with time. The results suggest that hens place a higher value on gaining access to a discrete nest-site prior to oviposition than they do on gaining access to food following 4 h food deprivation.

Keywords

animal welfarebehavioural prioritiesfeeding motivationlaying hensnesting behaviouroperant
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , February 2003 , pp. 39 - 52
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Footnotes

*

Current address: Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lincoln, Riseholme Park, Lincoln LN2 2LG, UK

†

Current address: The Humane Society of the United States, 2100 L Street NW Washington, DC 20037, USA

References

Appleby, M C 1986 Hormones and husbandry: control of nesting behaviour in poultry production. Poultry Science 65: 2352–2354CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, M C, Hughes, B O and Elson, A 1992 Poultry Production Systems: Behaviour, Management and Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Baxter, M R 1994 The welfare problems of laying hens in battery cages. Veterinary Record 134: 614–619CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bubier, N E 1996 The behavioral priorities of laying hens: the effect of cost/no cost multi-choice tests on time budgets. Behavioural Processes 37: 225–238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) 1999 Council Directive 99/74/EC: Laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities (L 203/53) 19 July 1999Google Scholar
Cooper, J J, Channing, C, Galhardo, L, Jones, O and Appleby, M C 1993 Comparison of the motivation to feed and the motivation to nest in laying hens. In: Savory J and Hughes B 0 (eds) Proceedings of the 4th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 279–280. UFAW: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J and Appleby, M C 1995 The effects of experience on motivation: prelaying behaviour in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J and Appleby, M C 1996a Individual variation in prelaying behaviour and the incidence of floor eggs in laying hens. British Poultry Science 37: 245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J and Appleby, M C 1996b Demand for nest boxes in laying hens. Behavioural Processes 36: 171–182CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, J J and Mason, G J 2000 Increasing costs of access to resources cause re-scheduling of behaviours in American mink (Mustela vison): implications for the assessment of behavioural priorities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 135–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1980 Animal Suffering. The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman & Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1988 Behavioural deprivation: a central problem in animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 209–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal's point of view: motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S and Beardsley, T 1986 Reinforcing properties of access to litter in hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Kite, V G 1987 Some investigations into motivation in the domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H, Savory, C J and Wood-Gush, D G M 1978 Observations on the reproductive behaviour of domestic fowl in the wild. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etches, R J 1990 The ovulatory cycle of the hen. Critical Reviews in Poultry Biology 2: 293–318Google Scholar
FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council) 1997 Report on the welfare of laying hens. FAWC: Tolworth, UKGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O and Duncan, I J H 1988 The notion of ethological ‘need’, models of motivation and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 36: 1696–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O, Duncan, I J H and Brown, M 1989 The performance of nest building by domestic hens: is it more important than the construction of the nest? Animal Behaviour 36: 327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarland, D 1989 Problems of Animal Behaviour. Longman: Harlow, UKGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J, McFarland, D and Garner, J 1998 A demanding task: using economic techniques to assess animal priorities. Animal Behaviour 55: 1071–1075CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, G J, Cooper, J J and Clarebrough, C 2001 Frustrations of fur-farmed mink. Nature 410: 35–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meijsser, F M and Hughes, B O 1989 Comparative analysis of pre-laying behaviour in battery cages and in three alternative systems. British Poultry Science 30: 747–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C J 1987 Behavioural responses of laying hens following a period of spatial restriction. Animal Behaviour 35: 1709–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C J and Guilford, T 1991 Exploratory behaviour as a measure of motivation in deprived hens. Animal Behaviour 41: 333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, IAS and Keeling, L K 2002 The push-door for measuring motivation in hens: laying hens are motivated to perch at night. Animal Welfare 11: 11–20Google Scholar
Olsson, IAS, Keeling, L K and McAdie, T M 2002 The push-door for measuring motivation in hens: an adaptation and a critical discussion of the method. Animal Welfare 11: 1–10Google 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
Petherick, J C, Sutherland, R H, Waddington, D and Rutter, SM 1992 Measuring the motivation of domestic-fowl in response to a positive and negative reinforcer. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C M and Nicol, C J 1993 A descriptive account of the pre-laying behaviour of hens housed individually in modified cages with nests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38: 49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C M 1994 (ed) Modified Cages for Laying Hens. UFAW: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S and Castellan, N J 1988 Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, Edn 2. McGraw-Hill: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Skelton, T M, Waran, N K and Young, R J 1996 Assessment of motivation in the lizard, Chalcides ocellatus. Animal Welfare 5: 63–69Google Scholar
Vestergaard, K 1982 Dust-bathing in the domestic fowl: diurnal rhythm and dust deprivation. Applied Animal Ethology 8: 487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widowski, T M and Duncan, I J H 2000 Working for a dustbath: are hens increasing pleasure rather than reducing suffering? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 39–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood-Gush, D G M and Gilbert, AB 1972 Observations on the laying behaviour of domestic hens in battery cages. British Poultry Science 10: 29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood-Gush, D G M 1975 Nest construction by the domestic hen: some comparative and physiological considerations. In: Wright, P, Caryl, P G and Vowles, D M (eds) Neural and Endocrine Aspects of Behaviour in Birds pp 35–49. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar