Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T13:37:02.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Normal behaviour as a basis for animal welfare assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

B Wechsler
B Wechsler*
Affiliation:
Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, Centre for Proper Housing of Ruminants and Pigs, Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland
*
email: beat.wechsler@art.admin.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is generally agreed that farm animal welfare is at a high level when the animals can behave naturally. Most of today's housing systems, however, differ considerably from the natural environment in which the behavioural organisation of the ancestors of our farm animal species evolved. Consequently, normal behaviour may be impaired in several ways. Frequency, duration or sequence of behavioural elements may be affected. Some normal behaviour patterns may not occur at all. The animals may also possibly behave in unnatural ways – in patterns that would never occur in nature. Furthermore, it is usual for farm animals to exhibit behaviour which is normal in form, but which is elicited by artificial structures within their housing system.

In view of these possible changes in normal behaviour, it is necessary to assess, for each farm animal species and each housing system, whether animal welfare is at risk in any way if the behaviour observed differs from the behaviour that would occur in a natural environment. In some cases the question can be answered by taking a theoretical evolutionary approach. In most cases, however, detailed knowledge about the behavioural organisation of the animals is necessary. Such knowledge is built up from animal motivation studies and investigations into the effect of environmental structures on animal behaviour.

A specific problem of on-farm animal welfare assessment is that there is often not enough time to collect sufficient data to make a judgement about the occurrence of normal behaviour. Resource-based assessment methods are appropriate as an alternative, provided that the resource standards used are based on evidence stemming from research into animal behaviour and motivation.

Keywords

animal welfarebehavioural organisationmotivationnormal behaviouron-farm researchwelfare assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , May 2007 , pp. 107 - 110
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arey, DS 1992 Straw and food as reinforcers for prepartal sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 217–226Google Scholar
Arey, DS, Petchey, AM and Fowler, VR 1991 The preparturient behaviour of sows in enriched pens and the effect of preformed nests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartussek, H 1999 A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals' well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61: 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ 1986 Feather-pecking in poultry: Its relation with ground-pecking. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 63–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cagienard, A, Regula, G and Danuser, J 2005 The impact of different housing systems on health and welfare of grower and finisher pigs in Switzerland. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 68: 49–61Google ScholarPubMed
Cooper, JJ and Appleby, MC 2003 The value of environmental resources to domestic hens: a comparison of the work-rate for food and for nests as a function of time. Animal Welfare 12: 39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, JEL, Burfoot, A, Docking, CM, Whittaker, X, Spoolder, HAM and Edwards, SA 2002 The effects of prior experience of straw and the level of straw provision on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Passillé, AM 2001 Sucking motivation and related problems in calves. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72: 175–187CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D'Eath, RB and Keeling, LJ 2003 Social discrimination and aggression by laying hens in large groups: from peck orders to social tolerance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 197–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH, Savory, CJ and Wood-Gush, DGM 1978 Observations on the reproductive behaviour of domestic fowl in the wild. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flower, FC and Weary, DM 2001 Effects of early separation on the dairy cow and calf: 2. Separation at 1 day and 2 weeks after birth. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70: 275–284CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D 1975 The effect of straw on the behaviour of sows in tether stalls. Animal Production 21: 59–68Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Götz, M and Rist, M 1984 Possibilities to avoid heat-stress in pigs. In: Unshelm, J, van Putten, G and Zeeb, K (eds) Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology in Farm Animals pp 209–213. KTBL: Darmstadt, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Graf, B 1992 Orale Ersatzaktivitäten bei Mastbullen – Auftreten, Ontogenese und Ursachen. KTBL-Schrift 351 pp 37–48. KTBL: Darmstadt, Germany. [Title translation: Oral substitute activities in fattening bulls – occurrence, ontogeny and causation]Google Scholar
Gygax, L, Schulze Westerath, H, Kuhlicke, J, Wechsler, B and Mayer, C 2005 Assessing cubicle dimensions for finishing bulls based on animal behaviour and cleanliness. Animal Science 81: 423–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hörning, B 2000 Scoring systems to assess housing conditions of farm animals – examples from dairy cows and laying hens. In: Blokhuis, HJ, Ekkel, ED and Wechsler, B (eds) Improving health and welfare in animal production. EAAP publication No. 102 pp 89–97. Wageningen Pers: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Huber-Eicher, B and Wechsler, B 1998 The effect of quality and availability of foraging materials on feather pecking in laying hen chicks. Animal Behaviour 55: 861–873CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, BO, Duncan, IJH and Brown, MF 1989 The performance of nest building by domestic hens: is it more important than the construction of a nest? Animal Behaviour 37: 210–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 1986 Observations on the maternal behaviour of free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidfors, LM 1996 Behavioural effects of separating the dairy calf immediately or 4 days post-partum. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 269–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, C, Schulze Westerath, H, Thio, T, Ossent, P, Gygax, L, Friedli, K and Wechsler, B 2005 Spaltenböden mit Gummiauflage für Mastbullen: Auswirkungen auf das Liegeverhalten und Veränderungen am Integument und an den Klauen. KTBL-Schrift 437 pp 33–41. KTBL: Darmstadt, Germany. [Title translation: Concrete slats with rubber top-layer for fattening bulls: effects on the lying behaviour and lesions on the integument and claws]: effects on the lying behaviour and lesions on the integument and claws]Google Scholar
Müller-Fickenwirth, A and Fölsch, DW 1988 Dustbathing of hens - Sequence analysis indicates normal behaviour and welfare. In: Unshelm, J, van Putten, G, Zeeb, K and Ekesbo, I (eds) Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology in Farm Animals pp 143–144. KTBL: Darmstadt, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Ofner, E, Amon, T, Lins, M and Ofner, B 2003 Correlations between the results of animal welfare assessments by the TGI 35 L Austrian Animal Need Index and health and behavioural parameters of cattle. Animal Welfare 12: 571–578Google Scholar
Olsson, IAS and Keeling, LJ 2002 The push-door for measuring motivation in hens: laying hens are motivated to perch at night. Animal Welfare 11: 11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, IAS, Keeling, LJ and Duncan, IJH 2002 Why do hens sham dustbathe when they have litter? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regula, G, Danuser, J, Spycher, B and Wechsler, B 2004 Health and welfare of dairy cows in different husbandry systems in Switzerland. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 66: 247–264CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stolba, A and Wood-Gush, DGM 1981 Verhaltensgliederung und Reaktion auf Neureize als ethologische Kriterien zur Beurteilung von Haltungsbedingungen bei Hausschweinen. KTBL-Schrift 264 pp 110–128. KTBL: Darmstadt, Germany. [Title translation: Sequential patterns in behaviour and responses to a novel object as indicators of animal welfare in pig housing systems]: Sequential patterns in behaviour and responses to a novel object as indicators of animal welfare in pig housing systems]Google Scholar
Stolba, A and Wood-Gush, DGM 1989 The behaviour of pigs in a semi-natural environment. Animal Production 48: 419–425Google Scholar
Tucker, CB, Weary, DM and Fraser, D 2004 Free-stall dimensions: effects on preference and stall usage. Journal of Dairy Science 87: 1208–1216CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veissier, I, Capdeville, J and Delval, E 2004 Cubicle housing for cattle: comfort of dairy cows depends on cubicle adjustment. Journal of Animal Science 82: 3321–3337CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vestergaard, K 1982 Dust-bathing in the domestic fowl - diurnal rhythm and dust deprivation. Applied Animal Ethology 8: 487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, KS, Damm, BI, Abbott, UK and Bildsoe, M 1999 Regulation of dustbathing in feathered and featherless domestic chicks: the Lorenzian model revisited. Animal Behaviour 58: 1017–1025CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, R, Ibscher, A and Stauffacher, M 2002 Aggressionsverhalten und tageszeitliche Verteilung der Futteraufnahme von Zuchtsauen am Breinuckel. KTBL-Schrift 407 pp 28–35. KTBL: Darmstadt, Germany. [Title translation: Aggressive behaviour and daily distribution of feed intake of dry sows at the “Breinuckel” feeding system]Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. The Veterinary Record 153: 197–202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widowski, TM and Duncan, IJH 2000 Working for a dustbath: are hens increasing pleasure rather than reducing suffering? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 39–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed