1. Behavioural indicators 1
Module 6
Behavioural indicators 1

2. Learning objectives By the end of this session you will be able to:
Understand the factors that influence animal behaviour
Identify how behavioural indicators contribute to our understanding of animal welfare

3. Summary of content Factors that contribute to animal behaviour
Animal choices
The value of behavioural indicators to understand animal welfare
Lessons that we can learn

4. Introduction (1)
Behaviour is useful in a study of animal welfare because it gives us an indication of how animals feel:
Choices that the animal makes
Reaction to a variety of stimuli
Behaviour assessments are, therefore, often used as indicators of welfare
The central aim of animal welfare science is to develop an objective understanding about the welfare of individual animals.
Behaviour is often related to feelings of animals, as the choices they make and their reaction to various stimuli give us an indication of their mental states.
Behaviour assessments are, therefore, often used as indicators of welfare.

5. Introduction (2)
Animal welfare scientists use behavioural indicators to identify factors that are important to animals
We can use behavioural indicators to recognise poor welfare or good welfare
It is impossible to be certain how animals sense their environment – how they perceive pain, how they feel if they are isolated, or housed without access to free movement.
It is even impossible to be certain that other human beings sense things in the same way as we do ourselves – but with other humans we can communicate using language. With animals, we must develop our understanding by using other signs, particularly behavioural signs, to tell us how they feel.

6. What is animal behaviour?
The choices that an animal makes as a result of analysis of environmental stimuli (often many)
These choices are influenced by:
experience
physiological status (e.g. age, pregnancy)
innate responses (e.g. species, breed)
Animal behaviour consists of the choices that an animal makes as a result of analysis of environmental stimuli. There are often many stimuli, sometimes conflicting, that an animal needs to process before making a choice. These choices are influenced by an animal’s experience, physiological status (e.g. age, pregnancy), and innate responses (e.g. species, breed).
For example, a group of calves moved into a new pen may run about and explore for a period.
If they consider that the new environment is threatening, they may huddle together, particularly if previous experience has taught them that something unpleasant may follow novelty.
If they are hungry, they will quickly settle to eat, if exhausted (e.g. following transport), they will lie down.
Some breeds /strains of cattle are innately more timid e.g. limousin.

7. Behavioural indicators in welfare science
1. Behaviour observation
2. Choices
3. Work that an animal will do to gain what it wants or needs
4. Work that an animal will do to escape unpleasant stimuli
5. Deviations from normal behaviour
The range of methods that have been developed suggests that no single behavioural indicator or sign provides a definitive measurement of an animal’s welfare.
However, in combination, these methods can give valuable evidence about welfare.
We shall look at examples of each of these methods.

8. 1.Behaviour observation
Observe how animals allocate their time in a natural environment
Record animal behaviour in a restricted environment
Scientists record the range of activities that an animal performs and the time spent on each of these activities in an “ethogram”. The observations must be made without disturbing the animal or group, and need to cover a prolonged period if they are to give an accurate picture of the animal’s way of life.

9. Behaviour observation: example
The bear in the picture on the left can choose exactly how it allocates its time.
However, in a highly restricted environment, such as in the picture on the right, the range of activities that animals can perform is limited, and animals may spend a lot of time doing nothing.
One can observe how animals allocate their time in a natural environment. One can also record animal behaviour in a restricted environment.
Good welfare, (according to a definition of welfare that says that animals must be able to fulfil their natural behaviour) involves allowing the animal the freedom to express normal behaviour. It is also one of the Five Freedoms. (See modules 1 and 2.)
Seen in this light, behaviour observation indicates that bears in the second environment (in the picture on the left) have poorer welfare. In the above scenarios the bear in the natural environment can be observed climbing and foraging for food. These behaviours are impossible in the restricted environment. Thus welfare is impaired in the second case.

10. Behaviour observation: example
Stolba and Wood-Gush (1989) examined the behaviour of groups of domestic pigs that were introduced to a large woodland enclosure. The domestic pigs soon showed a wide range of behaviours and spent very little time doing nothing – they can be seen feeding, rooting, moving through the forest, interacting with others, sleeping, wallowing, etc.
A pig in a stall is closely confined so cannot move about, it does not have access to mud for wallowing or earth for rooting, it cannot interact with other pigs. It can only stand up, lie down, sleep and eat the food it is offered.
This therefore indicates that pigs in stalls have poorer welfare than pigs with more space, as they cannot express any of their intrinsic natural behaviours.

11. 1.Behaviour observation
RESTRICTED, HOUSED ENVIRONMENT
Broiler chickens showed 11 and 19 behaviours in different studies
Caged hens showed 18 behaviours
OPEN, OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENT
60 different behaviours in blue-breasted quail
Complex range of sexual, parental and anti-predator behaviours in domestic hens
Simple behavioural observations form an essential first step to investigate animal welfare. They are the base line of data. More sophisticated techniques have evolved in attempts to identify the animal’s feelings more accurately, but behavioural observation remains an essential tool.
For example, this method has been used extensively for the study of behaviour of domestic birds in a variety of environments. The slide shows the numbers of behaviours that occur in an extensive open type environment compared with a restricted housed environment.
These methods are reviewed by Nicol C.J. (1996), who concludes that “there certainly seem to be many behaviours which these housed birds are not performing.” She further suggests that the next job is to investigate why animals are not performing certain behaviour patterns.

12. 1. Behaviour observation
Result: Very limited behaviour in restricted environment
Conclusion: Welfare is compromised by restricted environment
Many have concluded that animal welfare is compromised if animals are unable to perform the range of activities that they would perform if allowed an unrestricted environment.
However, others have questioned this conclusion.

13. 1. Behaviour observation
Behavioural observation does not tell us whether particular restrictions are important to the animal
Other methods have therefore been developed
The scientist needs to know whether the animal can adapt to the restrictions imposed upon it and be perfectly happy without access to the range of stimuli and activities that it would enjoy in a natural environment.
For example, a hen in a battery cage cannot flap her wings, as she has very limited space. In a natural environment wing-flapping would be part of her repertoire of behaviours. However, without further evidence it would not be possible to know if the hen has no motivation to perform the wing-flapping that she would perform if not confined to a cage.
We need to understand the strength of motivation that stimulates an animal to perform activities. This will allow us to learn whether or not their welfare is compromised if they are not able to perform them.

14. Offer the animal a variety of options and allow it to choose
2. Choices
Offer the animal a variety of options and allow it to choose
This method has been used to explore animal preferences:
For a pen with bedding compared to a concrete floor
For laying eggs in a nesting box compared to a wire cage
For particular types of food
The animal’s responses will vary according to environmental factors such as temperature, and internal factors such as age or sex.

15. 2. Choices: example
Hens have access to both bean bag (BB) and flat floor (FF) nests
The number of times they chose each kind of nest was recorded for 16 egg-layings FF BB
Food +
water BB FF
An experiment was carried out to investigate nest-site selection in domestic hens.
This work was published by DUNCAN, I.J.H. and KITE V.G., 1989: in Animal Behaviour 37 pp
22 hybrid layer hens were used, starting from two weeks before they started to lay for the first time.
Two nest types were tested. The flat floor nest was a simple flat surface. Bean bags were soft nest areas that could be compressed into a shape around the bird.
First the hens were trained by allowing them to become familiar with the test pens. The training period lasted for two weeks.
Each hen was tested until she had laid 16 times in one or the other of the nest boxes. If they laid eggs in the central area, this did not count.
The interest shown by the hens in each nest type was recorded as glances, examinations and entries into the nest boxes.

16. 2. Choices: example Glances 0.66 0.25 Examinations 0.72 0.28 Entries
Birds choosing bean bags
Birds choosing flat floors
Glances
0.66
0.25
Examinations
0.72
0.28
Entries
0.81
0.15
This table shows the proportion of behaviour patterns directed towards bean bag nests and flat floors.
The scale is a Logistic Scale value = log (P/1-P), where P is the proportion of birds showing each behaviour (glances, examinations, entries).
The results showed that the hens showed more interest in the bean bag nests.

17. 2. Choices
Result: Hens prefer to lay eggs in nests containing loose material that can be manipulated by their bodies and feet
Conclusion: Animals choose plenty of space, a comfortable bed, the opportunity to control their environment and to interact with others
The experimenters carried out a series of similar experiments to refine the choices that the hens would make. They concluded that hens prefer the bean bags, where they can mould the nest to the shape of their body. A further experiment showed that hens accept a nest that has been pre-moulded to their shape. However, they prefer litter nests to pre-moulded nests.
In many cases this method is used to identify quite specific preferences that animals make. However, the general conclusion is that animals prefer factors such as space, a comfortable bed, the opportunity to control their environment and to interact with others.

18. 2. Choices
This method gives the scientist information about an animal’s choices or preferences
However, it does not answer the question of whether the animal’s welfare suffers if cannot get what it prefers
An example might be that you prefer vanilla ice-cream to chocolate ice-cream, but you would be quite happy with either.
In fact your welfare will not suffer if you do not have any ice-cream at all.
In the same way, we need to identify the extent to which an animal’s preferences are luxuries, as opposed to needs that must be fulfilled in order to achieve a reasonable quality of life.

19. 3.Work that an animal will do to gain what it needs
Ask the animal to work for rewards - such as food or a dust bath
The amount of work the animal will perform indicates the importance of the reward to the animal
These experiments attempt to answer the question of the animal’s level of motivation.
They are much more complex than ethograms (An ethogram is a list and description of an animal's discrete patterns of behaviour, which are called acts) or free choices.
Experimentally, the animal can be taught how to perform work to gain a reward.The work may involve pressing a plate with a beak or paw.
In some cases the work is increased by asking the animal to repeat the action a greater number of times before it gains the reward. In others, the animal must push harder; for example, to open a door to gain access to food.
Experiments must usually be repeated many times with numbers of individual animals to give reliable results.

20. 3.Work that an animal will do to gain what it needs
An experiment measured the work that sows were prepared to do:
To gain access to straw for nest building
To gain access to food
It was already known that domesticated sows are highly motivated to build nests prior to farrowing.
This experiment (AREY, D.S., 1992: Applied Animal Welfare Science 33 pp ) compared the work that sows would do to gain access to what they needed. The motivation to gain access to food is high, and is useful for comparison with motivation for other needs.
This experiment was performed using five pregnant sows.

21. 3.Work that an animal will do to gain what it needs
Water
Feed
area
Straw
area
Swing doors
Panels
Lock
Lock
The experiment is laid out according to the diagram. The sows must press the panel to gain access either to straw or to food.
The sows are first trained with the doors unlocked, and the sow learns to open the door for food rewards.
Then the doors are locked, and the sow must press the panel several times in order to unlock it.
The amount of work can be increased by increasing the number of times the panels must be pressed before the swing doors will open.
Lay-out of experiment

22. 3.Work that an animal will do to gain what it needs
No. entries
Food
Straw
Low work
(one press)
21.4 17
High work (150 presses)
(2 days before farrowing)
11.4
2.6
High work (1 day before
farrowing)
16.4
The results show that when the work is low (sows must press the panel only once to open the swing door), sows at day 100 of pregnancy will press to enter both for food and for straw many times.
Two days before farrowing, when the work is high (sows must press the panel 150 times to open the door), they will push the panels to open the door for food much more often than to open the door for straw to build a nest.
However, on the day before farrowing, sows work almost as hard to gain access to straw as to gain access to food.

23. 3.Work that an animal will do to gain what it needs
Result: These results show that the sow’s motivation to build a nest is very strong in the last day of pregnancy
Conclusions: The animal works hardest for rewards of food, but (for example) at certain times in the production cycle, other motivations may be very strong
The experiment quantifies the amount of work a sow is willing to do to gain access to what she needs.
The conclusion to be drawn is that there is a strong welfare advantage in providing bedding for sows so that they may build a nest in the last days of pregnancy.
A small number of factors are essential to survival, such as feed, water and reproduction. Motivation is highest to perform these actions (dependent on hunger, thirst and stage of the reproductive cycle).
Motivation to perform other activities can be compared with motivation for essential needs such as food and water.

24. 4. Work that an animal will do to escape unpleasant stimuli
Measure how hard an animal will work to avoid a stressful or painful situation
These experiments are often set up in a similar way to the experiments described previously, with the animal pressing a plate or pushing a door to escape the unpleasant stimulus.
The stimulus under test can be compared to aversive stimuli such as minor electric shocks.

25. Time taken for sheep to clear a raceway
100
200
300
400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Full electro immobilisation
Wired-up
Restraint
Free run
Time through race (s)
In this experiment, the time taken for a group of sheep to clear a raceway was recorded.
Sheep that were directed through the raceway took longer if the sheep associated the raceway with an aversive (harmful) event.
They were first allowed to run free through the raceway, and cleared it very rapidly.
Next, a set of wires (these could be used to cause the electric shock of electro-immobilisation – but no shocks were given) was fixed to the sheep. The sheep cleared the raceway more slowly (presumably because the handling made the animals suspicious or nervous).
The animals were then restrained by a person in the raceway. They cleared the raceway at the same rate as when they were wired up.
The sheep were electro-immobilised. They then cleared the raceway much more slowly.
These results have been used to indicate that electro-immobilisation is highly aversive to sheep.

26. 4. Work that an animal will do to escape unpleasant stimuli
Results: useful to measure the effect of short-term stressors. Not for chronic suffering
N.B. These tests cause suffering!
Although these studies give evidence of short term stressors, most people would argue that the use of these tests should be minimised as they inevitably cause suffering.
However, others believe that they can be justified if their purpose is to change a particular routine practice in farm or laboratory animal husbandry.
Instead of causing suffering in experimental conditions such as those in the example, behavioural observations may be sufficient to indicate that certain stimuli are aversive.

27. 5. Deviations from normal behaviour
Animals may develop abnormal behaviour patterns such as tail-biting (pigs), feather-pecking or stereotypies.
(Stereotypies are repeated patterns of behaviour that have no purpose, for example, the calf in the picture repeatedly bites the cage bars.)
It can be difficult to interpret abnormal behaviour.
However, abnormal patterns of behaviour are most frequent in restricted environments, and may be the result of frustration. Most people agree that they indicate poor welfare.
The examples of tail-biting and feather-pecking both cause immediate suffering in the victims, but also suggest that the tail-biters’ and feather-peckers’ welfare is compromised.
These abnormal behaviours may not disappear even after the factors that caused restriction or frustration have been removed.

28. Stereotypies We l fare Very good Very poor Occasional stereotypy
caused by minor frustration We
l fare
Stereotypy performed for
5% of active time
This scale that links the frequency of stereotypies with welfare was written by Broom and Johnson (1993).
It is argued by some that the animal gains some relief from frustration by performing the stereotypy, but almost all agree that this range of abnormal behaviours is indicative of poor welfare.
Stereotypy for
40% of active time
Very poor

29. 5. Deviations from normal behaviour Giraffe observation (1)
The time budgets of giraffe in the wild and in zoos were compared
Various environmental factors were recorded to investigate possible correlations with behavioural differences
This method was used to compare the behaviour of wild giraffe compared to that of giraffe kept in four zoos in the UK (VEASEY, J.S., WARAN, N.K. and YOUNG, R.J., 1996: Animal Welfare 5 pp
Time budgets are records of the behaviour spent on different activities.
It must be noted that it was much easier to record behaviour of the zoo animals than the wild ones.
Environmental differences include paddock size (virtually unrestricted for wild giraffe), feed restriction (minimal for wild giraffe) and substrate (woodland and scrub for wild giraffe, grass and/or concrete for zoo giraffe).

30. 5. Deviations from normal behaviour Giraffe observation (2)
WILD GIRAFFE
Much time spent in locomotion
No stereotypies observed
Variation in time budgets at different sites
ZOO GIRAFFE
Little time spent on locomotion
All show stereotypies, especially at night
In one zoo, over 60% of nights were spent performing stereotypic behaviour
The researchers found that there were differences in behaviour between wild and captive giraffe. However, the researchers did comment that it was difficult to draw conclusions because sample size was small and because the method of observation was different between wild and captive animals.
There were few significant differences found between different zoos, although environment and paddock size was different.
However, the fact that wild giraffe showed no stereotypies and spent large amounts of time in locomotion demonstrates that zoo giraffe cannot perform normal behaviours, and seem to carry out abnormal behaviours instead.

31. 5. Deviations from normal behaviour
Conclusions: These abnormal behaviour patterns are most common where animals are kept in a barren environment with little stimulation
The bear in the picture walks backwards and forwards for hours at a time. There are other examples, such as weaving and crib-biting in horses, pacing in caged animals and sham-chewing (chewing action even though there is nothing in the mouth) in sows.
These behaviours have been studied in some detail, and the motivations may be complex, but they can often be linked to some normal activity (such as foraging in pigs) that is frustrated in a particular environment.
Numerous studies have shown that stereotypies are more common when animals are placed in barren environments with little stimulation.

32. 6. Interaction with humans
Animals learn by experience
Their experience with people enables them to associate humans either with pleasure or with pain and fear
This has been explored in animal welfare science
Most species of animals that are frequently handled by humans from an early age become very docile and tame.
However, if their experiences are negative, animals become afraid of humans and less willing to approach them. Animals also tend to become afraid if human behaviour towards them is unpredictable.
Science has explored this in three ways:
Observe the interactions of humans with the animals they look after
Observe the reactions of animals to humans
Subject animals to different human behaviours and measure their reaction. Animals soon learn to be fearful following negative human behaviour.

33. Variation in pig stockmen
This survey shows the percentage of negative (hitting, shouting, kicking) interactions between pigs and 35 stockpeople. The percentage of negative interactions ranged from 30% to 100%. Only nine stockpeople had less than 50% negative interactions with the pigs. On a few farms there is a small percentage of negative interactions with pigs. On many farms more than half the interactions with pigs are negative.
On a small number of farms, almost all interactions are negative.

34. Variation in pigs’ fear of stockmen (Australia)
Australian farms
160
120 80 40
Time to
interact
(sec)
This survey measured the average time taken for pigs in a pen to interact with humans on various farms in Australia. The greater the time taken to interact, the more fearful the pigs are of humans - i.e. it is a measure of fear of humans.
The results show that there is a variation in the fear of humans shown by pigs, with some taking almost twice as long as others to interact with humans.
Similar variation has been found with dairy heifers.

35. Behavioural indicators in welfare science - comparison with physiological measures
Advantages
Easier/less invasive
Requires less equipment
Can be done away from the lab
Disadvantages
Interpretation is difficult
Some consider less rigorous
Advantages of behavioural measures: They are less invasive (i.e. more welfare friendly), can be done away from the laboratory, generally require less equipment, and are a more direct measure of what the animal is doing. Anyone who is interested and is familiar with animals can observe their behaviour to find out more about their welfare.
Disadvantages: They require very careful design to ensure that results are valid. Some consider that behavioural measures are less rigorous and objective than physiological measures. Occasionally interpretation can be difficult.

36. Conclusions / Summary
Observation of animal behaviour can tell us a lot about choices and their importance to the animal
Each of the tests and experiments described provides some valuable information about an animal’s welfare. When the knowledge obtained is utilised in practical settings it is an essential tool for animal welfare improvement.