S. Mark Rutter

Quantifying motivation using a computer- controlled push-door

A computer-controlled push-door system was designed and tested as a method for measuring motivation. Eleven domestic hens were trained to use the push-door to gain access to food. They were deprived of food for 12 h or 43 h on 12 occasions and the push-door was used to measure the amount of “work” (measured as force × time) that they performed to gain access to a food reward. When deprived of food for 12 h the hens took significantly longer (P<0.01) to reach the required threshold of work, than when deprived for 43 h. This difference arose from the amount of time that the hens spent not pushing at the door. The problems encountered with this system and such an approach to measuring motivation are discussed.

The motivation of dairy cows for access to pasture.

Several factors influence whether dairy cattle prefer to be indoors or at pasture, including weather conditions and milk yield, but it is unclear how motivated cows are for access to pasture. One way to measure motivation is to require the animal to work (e.g., walk different distances) for access to a resource. This study investigated whether pasture access located 60, 140, or 260m from the indoor housing would affect the proportion of time dairy cows spent at pasture. Thirty-two Holstein-Friesian dairy cows were used during the study, which took place in the United Kingdom from May to July 2010. The experiment consisted of four 18-d experimental periods, with 8 cows in each period, which were further divided into 2 groups of 4 cows. Following a training period, the cows were randomly allocated to distances of 60, 140, or 260m to pasture over three 4-d measurement periods. A video camera was used to record time spent indoors and outdoors 24h/d, and manual behavior observations (0700 to 2200h) took place 6 times during each period to record how the cows spent their time in each location. The video data showed that cows spent, on average, 57.8% (±3.44) of their time outside (either at pasture or on the track). One-sample t-tests revealed that this value was different from 0% (t=16.80), 50% (t=2.26), and 100% (t=-12.28). Analysis of the percentage time spent outside revealed that distance did not influence nighttime pasture use (2100 to 0430h; F2,8=0.16; 81.0% vs. 81.0% vs. 76.7%, for 60m vs. 140m vs. 260m, respectively). In contrast, during the day (0700 to 2100h; from behavior observations), time spent at pasture declined as distance increased; that is, cows spent more time at pasture when they had to walk 60m (F2,80=10.09) than when they had to walk 140 or 260m (45.3% vs. 27.4% vs. 21.2%, respectively). Time spent at pasture decreased on rainy days (y=-1.0672x + 59.646, R(2)=0.09, n=48d), but the indoor temperature-humidity index (THI), the outdoor THI, and body condition score did not influence time spent outside. Under the climatic conditions of the current study in the United Kingdom, cows had a partial preference for pasture, which was influenced by distance to pasture during daytime but not at night. This shows that dairy cows were more motivated to access pasture at night compared with during the day.

Measuring aversion in domestic fowl using passive avoidance

Abstract There is a need for objective methods to determine how domestic animals feel about the husbandry procedures to which they are exposed. A passive avoidance technique was investigated as a measure of aversion in domestic fowl. The avoidance task required the hens to suppress a previously acquired food-reinforced operant key peck response during a certain auditory signal. Failure to do so resulted in the hens being punished by being exposed to the experimental treatment (cage dusting). This avoidance task was readily acquired by all ten of the subjects tested. Consequently, passive avoidance appears to be a suitable indicator of the aversiveness of frightening treatments in domestic fowl.

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

Public concern over animal welfare has led to a need for objective methods of determining how animals feel about the husbandry procedures to which they are subjected. Two aversion learning techniques, namely shuttle and one-way avoidance, were investigated as measures of aversion for use in the assessment of the welfare of domestic fowl. Neither avoidance task was readily acquired. Hens which did acquire the appropriate response generally did so only after extensive exposure to the aversive stimulus. This could result in habituation which might confound the measurement of aversion. Consequently, neither technique can be recommended as a measure of the aversiveness of frightening stimuli, although these techniques may be appropriate for assessing other aversive situations such as frustration.

Aversion of domestic fowl to whole-body vibratory motion

Abstract Although human response to whole-body vibration has been studied in some detail, there has been little research into animal response to such stimulation, even though the welfare of domestic animals may be compromised during transport. Here we report a study in which domestic fowl were tested in a passive avoidance procedure to determine how aversive they found two levels of vibration. Hens suppressed a food-reinforced operant response when this was punished by exposure to sinusoidal vibration at 1.0 Hz (1.51 ms −2 ), indicating this was aversive. There was little suppression in responding with exposure to sinusoidal vibration at 0.5 Hz (0.59 ms −2 ), indicating this was only slightly aversive. Passive avoidance appears to be a promising approach for assessing animal response to vibration. It could be used to derive frequency weightings which are required to design welfare-improved animal transport systems.

Measuring the motivation of domestic fowl in response to a positive and a negative reinforcer

Ten ISA Brown hens were trained to run an alleyway of 14.4 m in length to obtain a food reward. Each hen was deprived of food for each of 0, 6, 12 and 18 h on four occasions and the times taken to run the alleyway were recorded. The three deprivation periods resulted in greater speeds than the control (P<0.001), but there was no difference between the speeds for the deprivations. In a second experiment, 15 ISA Brown hens were trained to run the same alleyway for a food reward and then allocated to three groups which received differing numbers of exposures to a feather duster (negative reinforcement) on entry to the goal box. The three groups (0, 1 and 2) were given zero, four or eight exposures, respectively, during a 32 day period. The speeds of Groups 0 and 1 increased linearly during the experiment, but the slopes were not statistically distinguishable. The speeds of Group 2 showed a curvilinear pattern, with no overall change between the start and end of the experiment, but with a decrease in speeds during the middle part of the experiment.

Advanced livestock management solutions

Abstract Precision approaches to farming are already having a big impact in many areas of agricultural production. Although dairy cattle farming has been at the forefront of developments in ruminant livestock production, technologies such as electronic identification, walk over weighing and automatic shedding gates are starting to have an impact in sheep production systems. A variety of new technologies are in development, and these have the potential to make a significant impact on sheep production systems in the future. These should not only improve the efficiency of production but also improve sheep welfare. Farmers need to be aware of both the limitations of these emerging technologies and also the fact they cannot replace good stockmanship.