Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Full Text

Full Text

Ratings:

4.0

(2)
|Views: 144 |Likes:
Published by Kagiso Mokalake
psychology research
psychology research

More info:

Published by: Kagiso Mokalake on Jun 22, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
International Journal of Comparative Psychology 
Volume 
15,
Issue 
2 2002
Article 
1
Role of Comparative Psychology in theDevelopment of Effective EnvironmentalEnrichment Strategies to Improve PoultryWelfare
Bryan R. Jones
Roslin Institute, United Kingdom,Copyrightc
2002 by , unless otherwise noted. This article is part of the collected publicationsof 
International Journal of Comparative Psychology 
.
International Journal of ComparativPsychology 
is produced by the eScholarship Repository and bepress.
 
Abstract
Environmental enrichment can improve poultry welfare and productivity by decreasingharmful behaviours, like fear or feather pecking. Having shown that chickens used an environ-ment more when it was enriched, we then identified specific preferences in order to design moreeffective enrichment. First, we found that televised stimuli were attractive to chickens, thattheir regular presentation reduced fear, and that the images should incorporate movement,brightness, colour, and moderate complexity. Projecting them onto the walls might be a prac-ticable strategy. Second, farmers reported that playing the radio reduced aggression, improvedthe birds’ health and increased productivity; this is also one of the easiest ways of enrichingthe farmers’ environment. Third, our findings that the presence of a familiar odourant reducedchicks’ fear of novel places, birds and food suggest that olfactory therapy could minimizecertain behavioural problems. Finally, providing chickens with bunches of string promoted for-aging and exploration, sustained lengthy interest, and reduced potentially injurious inter-birdpecking and feather damage in the laboratory and at a commercial farm. Clearly, extraneousstimulation is important to chickens. The provision of appropriate visual, auditory, olfactoryand tactile enrichment is likely to improve their quality of life.
Suggested Citation:
Bryan R. Jones (2002) “Role of Comparative Psychology in the Development of EffectiveEnvironmental Enrichment Strategies to Improve Poultry Welfare”,
International Journal of  Comparative Psychology 
: Vol. 15: No. 2, Article 1.http://repositories.cdlib.org/uclapsych/ijcp/vol15/iss2/art1
 
 International Journal of Comparative Psychology
 ,
2002,
15,
77-106.Copyright 2002 by the International Society for Comparative Psychology
Role of Comparative Psychology in the Development of Effective Environmental Enrichment Strategies toImprove Poultry Welfare
R. Bryan Jones
 Roslin Institute, United Kingdom
Environmental enrichment can improve poultry welfare and productivity by decreasing harmful be-haviours, like fear or feather pecking. Having shown that chickens used an environment more when itwas enriched, we then identified specific preferences in order to design more effective enrichment.First, we found that televised stimuli were attractive to chickens, that their regular presentation re-duced fear, and that the images should incorporate movement, brightness, colour, and moderate com-plexity. Projecting them onto the walls might be a practicable strategy. Second, farmers reported thatplaying the radio reduced aggression, improved the birds’ health and increased productivity; this isalso one of the easiest ways of enriching the farmers’ environment. Third, our findings that the pres-ence of a familiar odourant reduced chicks’ fear of novel places, birds and food suggest that olfactorytherapy could minimize certain behavioural problems. Finally, providing chickens with bunches of string promoted foraging and exploration, sustained lengthy interest, and reduced potentially injuri-ous inter-bird pecking and feather damage in the laboratory and at a commercial farm. Clearly, extra-neous stimulation is important to chickens. The provision of appropriate visual, auditory, olfactoryand tactile enrichment is likely to improve their quality of life.
Public awareness of the conditions under which intensively farmed ani-mals are routinely housed increased dramatically with the publication of Ruth Har-rison’s book 
 Animal Machines
(Harrison, 1964) and resulted in a vociferous andgrowing concern for their welfare/well-being. Such concern led, via various gov-ernment committees and numerous publications, to the establishment of the UKFarm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) in 1979. Briefly, this organization recom-mended that the UK Welfare Codes should be structured to permit farm animals tohave five basic rights or freedoms. These included: “freedom from hunger andthirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease, freedom toexpress normal behaviour; and freedom from fear and distress (Webster 1994;FAWC, 1997). In this paper I will not attempt to review the substantial body of literature on the ethics of animal welfare and intensive farming or on the advancesmade in areas outwith the sphere of environmental enrichment for poultry, butreaders who wish to delve will find much useful material in books by Rollin(1981), Webster (1994), Mepham, Tucker and Wiseman (1995), Singer (1995),and Spedding (2000). I will, however, echo Siegel’s (1993) sentiment that from amoral point of view, “the ability to husband more chickens or turkeys because of technological advances does not reduce the obligations that humans have to these(and other) animals”.
Much of the work reported here was supported by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries andFood (now the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), the European CommissionFAIRS Programme (Framework IV), and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Coun-cil, UK. I am also grateful to colleagues who participated in our collaborative studies for their enthu-siasm and hard work. Address correspondence to Bryan Jones, Welfare Biology Group, Division of Integrative Biology, Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, United Kingdom(Bryan.Jones@bbsrc.ac.uk).

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->