Effects of predictability on the welfare of captive animals

Abstract

Variations in the predictability of a stressor have pronounced effects on the behavioural and physiological effects of stress in rats. It is reasonable to expect that variations in the predictability of husbandry routines thought to be aversive to animals might have similar effects on stress indices. Similarly, variations in the predictability of positive events, of which feeding is an obvious example, may affect welfare. This review examines the behavioural and physiological effects of the predictability of aversive and appetitive stimuli, and the application of experimental findings to animal husbandry in practice. It is argued here that two distinct but overlapping types of predictability exist. 'Temporal' predictability describes whether an event occurs at fixed or variable intervals, whereas 'signalled' predictability relates to the reliability of a signal preceding the event. This review examines the effects of each of these types of predictability in relation to positively and negatively perceived events, and examines the link between predictability and control. Recommendations are made for relatively simple and inexpensive modifications to husbandry routines that may be easy to incorporate into the schedules of busy staff yet could have a profound impact on the welfare of animals in their care.

Piglets’ weaning behavioural response is influenced by quality of human–animal interactions during suckling

“…Fear of handlers who carry out the daily routine can cause distress to animals and reduce their welfare (Rushen et al, 1999b;Hemsworth, 2003;Spoolder and Waiblinger, 2009). Unpredictability and lack of control, especially when associated with aversive experiences, may also reduce the welfare of captive animals (Bassett and Buchanan-Smith, 2007). In intensive housing systems, pigs usually have little or no control over the situations to which they are subjected during routine husbandry procedures.…”

Variation in the emission rate of sounds in a captive group of false killer whales Pseudorca crassidens during feedings: possible food anticipatory vocal activity?

“…The restrictions imposed by the controlled environment associated with their high level of motivation to express appetitive behavior in captive animals may lead them to change their arousal levels during the time prior to feeding (Mason, 1991;Carlstead, 1998;Mallapur and Chellan, 2002). These behavioral modifi cations are referred to as food anticipatory activity (FAA) (see review Mistlberger, 1994;Bassett and Buchanan-Smith, 2007), which is defi ned by Spruijt et al (2001) as "responses elicited by rewarding stimuli that lead to and facilitate consumatory behaviors" (Bassett and BuchananSmith, 2007;Jensen et al, 2013). FAA is thought to be developed by a classically conditioned process through repeated pairing of either circadian phases or external cues with food presentation (Amstrong, 1980;see review Mistlberger, 1994).…”

“…For example, when food availability is predictable, and it occurs at the same time of the day, animals can predict the occurrence of the feeding based on their internal clock (reviewed by Mistlberger, 1994;Roberts, 1998). In this case, food seeking behavior (appetitive phase of foraging) comes under the control of a circadian mechanism referred to as temporal predictability (Mistlberger, 2009), which relies on the ability of the animals to estimate time intervals between events (Richelle, 1980;Bassett and Buchanan-Smith, 2007;Jensen et al, 2013). The capacity to detect and learn to use temporal information to predict intervals between food availability is a basic adaptive aspect of behavior (Richelle, 1980;Higa and Staddon, 1997;Bassett and Buchanan-Smith, 2007), which can be maintained even if the individuals are kept in an environment with either no or irregular variation in light intensity (Johanneson and Ladewig, 2000).…”

The effects of enrichment novelty versus complexity in cages of group-housed rats (Rattus norvegicus)

“…Lack of control and predictability can adversely affect animal welfare (Bassett and Buchanan-Smith 2007;Chappell et al, 1986;Dawkins, 1990;Hutton and Wood-Gush, 1983;Joffe et al, 1973;Wiepkema, 1987;Wiepkema and Koolhaas, 1993).…”

“…Dawkins, 1990;Clubb and Mason, 2003;Mason and Latham, 2004;Vickery and Mason, 2004). In addition, restrictive environment of laboratory cages may limit the ability of the animals to predict and control the environment, and could thus be stressful (Wiepkema and Koolhaas, 1993;Sambrook and Buchanan-Smith, 1997;Bassett and Buchanan-Smith, 2007).…”