Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:11:57.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Push-Door for Measuring Motivation in Hens: An Adaptation and a Critical Discussion of the Method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

IAS Olsson ,
L J Keeling  and
T M McAdie
IAS Olsson*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P O Box 234, SE 532 23 Skara, Sweden
L J Keeling
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P O Box 234, SE 532 23 Skara, Sweden
T M McAdie
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P O Box 234, SE 532 23 Skara, Sweden
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
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.

Animals should be given the opportunity to perform behaviours that they are motivated to show if we are to maximise their welfare. Research studies into motivation and appropriate methods of studying it are therefore important. Different factors may need to be taken into consideration depending on the form of the behaviour being studied. Certain commodities, such as a perch for night-time roosting, have a value only if the animal is given full access to them until it has completed the behaviour. For other commodities, such as food and water, the amount can be varied along a continuous scale without affecting the animals’ demand for that resource. The commonly used operant techniques generating demand curves are based on the assumption that demand is not affected by the size of the reward (ie how much of the commodity the animal gains access to). As a consequence, these techniques are appropriate only for assessing motivation for resources of which the size can be varied. Resources of the ‘all-or-none’ type, on the other hand, require a different approach. We discuss different adaptations of the push-door technique as a measure of motivation, and we present results that validate a version with fixed, individually adapted levels of resistance. The method was validated using laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus) tested at different levels of food deprivation and exposed to two series of increasing door resistances. The results show that the level of food-deprivation affects the amount of resistance that is overcome. We conclude that this method could be used to study hens’ motivation for commodities of the ‘all-or-none’ type.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourdemandmotivationoperantpoultry
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , February 2002 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
© 2002 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Footnotes

*

Present address: Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology, Rua Campo Alegre 823,4150-180 Porto, Portugal

†

Present address: Behavioural Sciences Department, School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire HD1 3DH, UK

References

Amsel, A 1958 The role of frustrative nonreward in continuous reward situations. Psychological Bulletin 55: 102–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amsel, A 1962 Frustrative nonreward in partial reinforcement and discrimination learning: some recent history and theoretical extension. Psychological Review 69: 306–328CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chance, P 1999 Learning and Behavior. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company: Pacific Grove, USAGoogle 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: 1–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Kite, V G 1987 Some investigations into motivation in the domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 387–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D and Matthews, L R 1997 Preference and motivation testing. In: Appleby M C and Hughes B 0 (eds) Animal Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Holm, S 1979 A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 6: 65–70Google 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
Jensen, P and Toates, F M 1993 Who needs “behavioural needs”? Motivational aspects of the needs of animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 161–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G, McFarland, D and Garner, J 1998 A demanding task: using economic techniques to assess animal priorities. Animal Behaviour 55: 1071–1075CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthews, L R and Ladewig, J 1994 Environmental requirements of pigs measured by behavioural demand functions. Animal Behaviour 47: 713–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, I A S and Keeling, L J 2001 The push-door for measuring motivation in hens: laying hens are motivated to perch at night. Animal Welfare 11: 11–19Google 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
Sherwin, C M and Nicol, C J 1998 A demanding task: using economic techniques to assess animal priorities. A reply to Mason et al. Animal Behaviour 55: 1079–1081CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sumpter, C E, Foster, M and Temple, W 1995 Predicting and scaling hens’ preferences for topographically different responses. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour 63: 151–163CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varian, H R 1990 Intermediate Microeconomics. A Modern Approach. W W Norton & Company: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Widowski, T M and Duncan, I J H 2000 Working for a dustbath: are hens increasing pleasure rather than relieving suffering? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar