PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9872577

Behavior and behavioral needs.

Abstract

An understanding of behavior is important in any consideration of poultry welfare. Behavior is a good indicator of states of suffering such as fear, frustration, and pain. It might also be possible to use social interactions as indicators of welfare. The possibility of using "luxury" behavior, such as play and exploratory behavior, as an indicator of positive emotional states, requires investigation. Important welfare consequences arise from the fact that some behavior may be so strongly motivated as to constitute a "need". A behavioral need will arise in the case of behavior, such as nesting, that is controlled largely by internal factors, because these factors will be present no matter what type of environment is provided. Behavior triggered largely by external stimuli, such as responses to predators, will not give rise to a need if the external factors can be removed from the environment. Dustbathing is an example of behavior controlled by complex interactions between internal and external factors; the extent to which this constitutes a need is still being debated. If a behavioral need arises, then it is important that the environment provided allows it to be performed without damage to the performer or other birds. It should also be remembered that birds may need to perform behavior, including appetitive as well as consummatory elements, although the functional consequences of these are no longer required for survival. Finally, the performance of certain behavior leads to an increase in health or physical condition that improves welfare later in life.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

I J Duncan. 1998. Behavior and behavioral needs.. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps%2F77.12.1766

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Systematic review of comparative studies examining alternatives to the harmful use of animals in biomedical education.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the published literature for controlled studies comparing learning outcomes of traditional methods that require the terminal use of animals (eg, dissection, live-animal surgery, and live-animal laboratory demonstrations) with outcomes obtained with alternative teaching methods. DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY POPULATION: Controlled studies published between 1996 and 2004. PROCEDURES: PubMed was searched with the following keywords, used alone and in combination: educational alternatives, nonlethal teaching methods, veterinary alternatives, medical education, and nonterminal animal use. Cited references of retrieved reports were reviewed to identify additional reports. Reports were selected for review only if a comparison group was included. RESULTS: 17 studies that were randomized controlled trials or nonrandomized trials that included a comparison group were identified. Five involved veterinary students, 3 involved medical students, 6 involved university undergraduate students, and 3 involved high school biology students. Sample size ranged from 14 to 283 students. Eleven studies appeared to be randomized, parallel-group trials, 4 involved comparative groups to which participants were not randomly assigned or for which the randomization process was not clear, 1 was a 2-period crossover study, and 1 involved a retrospective review of grades. In all 17 studies reviewed, results associated with the alternative method of instruction were not significantly different from or superior to results associated with the conventional method. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although the number of controlled studies identified was small, the results seem to support more widespread adoption of alternative teaching methods in biomedical education.

Animal Welfare↗