Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:46:29.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the Relative Aversiveness of Two Stimuli: Single Sheep in the Arena Test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

H W Erhard
H W Erhard*
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK
*
h.erhard@macaulay.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.

In the test described here, sheep are exposed to a situation of conflict between the motivation to approach other sheep and the motivation to avoid a human handler. The distance that the test sheep keep from the handler is a reflection of the relative aversiveness of this handler to the sheep. The test itself requires only a minimum amount of handling and gives the test animals the opportunity to choose their distance from the aversive stimulus, thereby reducing stress during the test itself. The two aversive stimuli chosen for comparison were a human handler facing toward the test arena (more aversive) or the same handler turning his back to the arena (less aversive). Ten Scottish Blackface sheep were tested individually a total of ten times, five times with each of the two stimuli in alternate tests. During the first two tests, nine of the sheep stayed further away when the human was facing toward the arena, compared to when he was facing away; this shows that the test is able to discriminate differences in aversiveness between two stimuli as perceived by individual sheep. This difference was not apparent in the following eight tests, probably because of the fact that the stimuli were not reinforced during the tests. Because the test is concerned with sheep's reaction to a stimulus (eg handler), the procedure associated with the stimulus itself (eg shearing, castration) does not have to be repeated in the test, which means that this method is ideal for studying procedures which cause distress to the animals or which are difficult to repeat.

Keywords

animal welfareapproach-avoidance conflictaversionmotivationsheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , August 2003 , pp. 349 - 358
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Adams, D B and Fell, L R 1997 The effect of infection with the abomasal nematode, Haemonchus contortus, on the avoidance behaviour of sheep in a motivational-choice test. International Journal for Parasitology 27: 665–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A and Bouissou, M F 1995 Assessment of individual differences in behavioural reactions of heifers exposed to various fear-eliciting situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouissou, M F and Vandenheede, M 1995 Fear reactions of domestic sheep confronted with either a human or a human-like model. Behavioural Processes 34: 81–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, R E, Fell, L R and Shutt, D A 1994 A comparison of stress in surgically and non-surgically mulesed sheep. Australian Veterinary Journal 71: 243–247CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fell, L R, Lynch, J J, Adams, D B, Hinch, G N, Munro, R K and Davies, H I 1991 Behavioural and physiological effects in sheep of a chronic stressor and a parasite challenge. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 42: 1335–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fell, L R and Shutt, D A 1989 Behavioural and hormonal responses to acute surgical stress in sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup, G G Jr, Nash, R F, Donegan, N H and McClure, M K 1971 The immobility response: a predator- induced reaction in chickens. The Psychological Record 21: 513–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T, Curtis, S E, Widowski, T M and Thurmon, J C 1986 Electro-immobilization versus mechanical restraint in an avoid-avoid choice test for ewes. Journal of Animal Science 62: 1469–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grigor, P N, Goddard, P J and Littlewood, C A 1998 The relative aversiveness to farmed red deer of transport, physical restraint, human proximity and social isolation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, R R 1994 Sensitivity to information specifying the line of gaze of humans in sparrows (Passer domesticus). Behaviour 130: 41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilgour, R J and Szantar-Coddington, M R 1997 The arena test and cortisol response of sheep as indirect selection criteria for the improvement of lamb survival. Animal Reproduction Science 46: 97–108CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, J J, Hinch, G N and Adams, D B 1992 The Behaviour of Sheep: Biological Principles and Implications for Production. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Romeyer, A and Bouissou, M F 1992 Assessment of fear reactions in domestic sheep, and influence of breed and rearing conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34: 93–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J 1986a Aversion of sheep for handling treatments: paired-choice studies. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J 1986b Aversion of sheep to electro-immobilization and physical restraint. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J 1996 Using aversion learning techniques to assess the mental state, suffering, and welfare of farm animals. Journal of Animal Science 74: 1990–1995CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snedecor, G W and Cochran, W G 1989 Statistical Methods, Edn 8. Iowa University Press: Ames, USAGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A A and Weary, D M 2000 Vocal responses of piglets to castration: identifying procedural sources of pain. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70: 17–26CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vandenheede, M and Bouissou, M F 1993 Sex differences in fear reactions in sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar