Examining the usefulness of a Y-maze choice method to measure the preferences of laying hens
N. A. Arnold A and P. H. Hemsworth A BA Animal Welfare Science Centre, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 3010, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: phh@unimelb.edu.au
Animal Production Science 53(12) 1283-1290 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN12390
Submitted: 7 November 2012 Accepted: 9 July 2013 Published: 24 September 2013
Journal Compilation © CSIRO Publishing 2013 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Measurement of animal preferences can be used as an indirect, but persuasive, method for assessing animal welfare on the basis that preferences may identify resources and behaviours that might be important to animals. The present experiment examined the usefulness of a Y-maze methodology, incorporating alteration of motivational state through prior restriction of resources of potentially differing value in assessing and understanding animal preferences. The choice behaviour of laying hens for feed, a dustbath substrate (sawdust; ‘dust’) and social contact was measured under three pairwise comparisons in a Y-maze apparatus. In each of the three experiments, 48 birds (HyLine Brown Strain; n = 24 per experiment) were offered a choice of two resources in a Y-maze test, with one of the three possible resource pairings. In each experiment, after Y-maze training, an equal number of birds was deprived in a factorial design of Resource 1, Resource 2, both, or neither resource. Analysis of choices over 24 trials per bird in each experiment revealed that birds preferred feed over social contact or dust, irrespective of restriction of any of these resources, and further, were quicker (P < 0.01) to make feed choices than dust or social-contact choices. In the social contact and dust comparison, restriction of dust significantly (P < 0.05) increased choice for dust in the 24 trials (38 vs 53% dust choice), suggesting that dust restriction increased the birds’ motivation to access dust. This result potentially highlights the impact of the resource of comparison in pairwise tests on overall choice response to restriction. The inclusion of measurements of speed of movement through the Y maze proved a useful aspect of the methodology, providing results consistent with choice behaviour in all three experiments. Although overall choices for dust and social contact were not significantly (P = 0.328) different from random, birds were quicker (P < 0.05) to make dust choices than social-contact choices, suggesting that speed of choice may be a particularly sensitive correlate of current motivation levels. The consistency of results across these experiments, together with results reported in the literature on laying-hen preferences, suggests that the methodology is a promising option for assessing the relative preference for resources for laying hens. Additional evidence, particularly on the occurrence of abnormal behaviour, stress physiology and health, when restricted of the resource of interest is necessary to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the impact of the restriction on animal welfare.
References
Arnold NA, Ralph C, Petherick JC, Hemsworth PH (2007) The choice behaviour of laying hens for feed and dustbathing. In ‘Proceedings Australian Poultry Science Symposium Vol. 19’. (Ed. P Selle) p. 32. (University of Sydney: Camden)Barnard C (2004) ‘Animal behaviour: mechanism, development, function and evolution.’ (Pearson Education: Harlow, UK)
Bradshaw RH (1992) Conspecific discrimination and social preference in the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33, 69–75.
| Conspecific discrimination and social preference in the laying hen.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Channing CE, Hughes BO, Walker AW (2001) Spatial distribution and behaviour of laying hens housed in an alternative system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72, 335–345.
| Spatial distribution and behaviour of laying hens housed in an alternative system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 11348682PubMed |
Dawkins M (1976) Towards an objective method of assessing welfare in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Ethology 2, 245–254.
| Towards an objective method of assessing welfare in domestic fowl.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dawkins M (1977) Do hens suffer in battery cages? Environmental preferences and welfare. Animal Behaviour 25, 1034–1046.
| Do hens suffer in battery cages? Environmental preferences and welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dawkins MS (1983) Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs’. Animal Behaviour 31, 1195–1205.
| Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs’.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Duncan IJH (1977) Behavioural wisdom lost. Applied Animal Ethology 3, 193–194.
| Behavioural wisdom lost.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fraser D, Matthews LR (1997) Preference and motivation testing. In ‘Animal welfare’. (Eds MC Appleby, BO Hughes) pp. 159–174. (CAB International: Wallingford, UK)
Hughes BO (1977) Selection of group size in individual laying hens. British Poultry Science 18, 9–18.
| Selection of group size in individual laying hens.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hughes BO, Black AJ (1973) The preference of domestic hens for different types of battery cage floor. British Poultry Science 14, 615–619.
| The preference of domestic hens for different types of battery cage floor.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hutson GD (1981) Sheep movement on slatted floors. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 21, 474–479.
Laine S, Arnold NA, Hemsworth PH (2007) Choice behaviour of laying hens: effects of deprivation of feed and dustbath substrate. In ‘Proceedings Australian Poultry Science Symposium Vol. 19’. (Ed. P Selle) pp. 28–31. (University of Sydney: Camden)
Laine SM, Cronin GM, Hemsworth PH, Petherick JC (2008) The effects of quantity of reward on the choice behaviour of laying hens in a Y-maze preference test. In ‘Proceedings of the 42nd congress of the International Society of Applied Ethology, Dublin, Ireland, 5–9 August 2008’. (Eds L Boyle, N O’Connell, A Hanlon) p. 117. (Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands)
Larsen BH, Vestergaard KS, Hogan JA (2000) Development of dustbathing behavior sequences in the domestic fowl: the significance of functional experience. Developmental Psychobiology 37, 5–12.
| Development of dustbathing behavior sequences in the domestic fowl: the significance of functional experience.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M%2FjtFShsQ%3D%3D&md5=02931ffd9c061386beb2fb1e550239f7CAS | 10937656PubMed |
Matthews LR, Ladewig J (1994) Environmental requirements of pigs measured by behavioural demand functions. Animal Behaviour 47, 713–719.
| Environmental requirements of pigs measured by behavioural demand functions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Olsson IAS, Keeling LJ, Duncan IJH (2002) Why do hens sham dustbathe when they have litter? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 53–64.
| Why do hens sham dustbathe when they have litter?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Petherick JC, Waddington D, Duncan IJH (1990) Learning to gain access to a foraging and dustbathing substrate by domestic fowl: is ‘out of sight out of mind’? Behavioural Processes 22, 213–226.
Petherick JC, Sunderland RH, Waddington D, Rutter SM (1992) Measuring the motivation of domestic fowl in response to a positive and a negative reinforcer. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33, 357–366.
| Measuring the motivation of domestic fowl in response to a positive and a negative reinforcer.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Petherick JC, Seawright E, Waddington D (1993) Influence of motivational state on choice of food or a dustbathing/foraging substrate by domestic hens. Behavioural Processes 28, 209–220.
| Influence of motivational state on choice of food or a dustbathing/foraging substrate by domestic hens.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Petherick JC, Seawright E, Waddington D, Duncan IJH, Murphy LB (1995) The role of perception in the causation of dustbathing behaviour in domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour 49, 1521–1530.
| The role of perception in the causation of dustbathing behaviour in domestic fowl.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Phillips PA, Thompson BK, Fraser D (1988) Preference tests of ramp designs for young pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 68, 41–48.
| Preference tests of ramp designs for young pigs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pollard JC, Littlejohn RP, Suttie JM (1994) Responses of red deer to restraint in a Y maze preference test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 63–71.
| Responses of red deer to restraint in a Y maze preference test.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rushen J (1986) Aversion of sheep for handling treatments: paired-choice studies. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16, 363–370.
| Aversion of sheep for handling treatments: paired-choice studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
van Rooijen J (1982) The value of choice tests in assessing welfare of domestic animals. Applied Animal Ethology 8, 295–299.
| The value of choice tests in assessing welfare of domestic animals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vestergaard K (1982) Dust-bathing in the domestic fowl – diurnal rhythm and dust deprivation. Applied Animal Ethology 8, 487–495.
| Dust-bathing in the domestic fowl – diurnal rhythm and dust deprivation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Widowski TM, Hemsworth PH (2008) Housing hens to suit their ‘needs’. In ‘Proceedings XXIII World Poultry Congress, 30 June–4 July 2008, Brisbane’. p. 241.
