Conditioned place preference or aversion as animal welfare assessment tools: Limitations in their application
Conditioned place preference or aversion as animal welfare assessment tools: Limitations in their application
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.applanim.2013.07.012
复制
发表时间：
2013-09-01
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
D'Eath, Rick B.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dixon, Laura M.;Sandilands, Vicky;D'Eath, Rick B.
条件位置偏好（CPP）或厌恶（CPA）方法是动物福利评估中潜在的有用工具，因为它们允许在没有刺激本身的情况下测量刺激的强化特性。我们采用CPP/CPA技术进行了一系列试验，以评估限食肉鸡种鸡对增加食物量或避免厌恶刺激的偏好。在所有的实验中，6-10周龄的Ross308对肉鸡种鸡被分成两组。在视觉上区分围栏两侧，并在每个围栏一侧使用不同的刺激来训练鸟类，以纠正可能的一侧偏差，在CPP一侧使用不同的食物量或厌恶刺激，而在CPA一侧没有或“中性”刺激。为了测试是否形成了对围栏一侧的偏好，在没有刺激的情况下移除围栏分隔器，并记录鸟类在每个围栏一侧停留的时间。每个实验都有一个析因处理结构（每个处理组合n=10个重复围栏），并分析了鸟类在“积极”围栏一侧（即CPP增加食物量或CPA“中性”）花费的时间比例。在CPP实验1中（180只鸟组成90对），试验了三种不同的训练方案和三种不同的测试方法：在所有鸟的训练期间，在一个围栏一侧的鸟接受了商业推荐的限制食物量(R)，在另一个围栏一侧的鸟接受了两倍的食物量（2R）（测试期间没有食物）。在实验2（110只鸟组成40对，10只单独饲养）和3（80只鸟组成40对）中，对实验方法进行了进一步改进，将鸟类分配到食物量为2R或3R（相对于R）的CPP处理或CPA处理，“社会隔离”或“不可预测的风”。总的来说，没有证据表明在训练期间对具有厌恶刺激的栏侧进行厌恶测试，并且在训练期间对增加食物量的栏侧进行偏好测试的证据很少。此外，在CPP达到统计显著性的地方，所显示的偏好非常小。最一致的结果是，在每次测试之前，它们对没有被安置在围栏一侧的鸟有强烈的偏好
Conditioned place preference (CPP) or aversion (CPA) methods are potentially useful tools in animal welfare assessment because they permit measurement of the reinforcing properties of a stimulus in the absence of the stimulus itself. We used CPP/CPA techniques in a series of experiments to assess the preference of food restricted broiler breeders for increased food quantities or avoidance of aversive stimuli. In all experiments, 6-10 week old Ross308 pairs of broiler breeders were housed in pens divided in half. Pen sides were visually differentiated and birds were trained with different stimuli on each pen side, correcting for possible side biases, either different food amounts for CPP or aversive stimuli on one pen side and none, or 'neutral', on the other, for CPA. To test if a preference for a pen side had been formed, the pen divider was removed when no stimulus was present and the amount of time birds spent on each pen side was recorded. Each experiment had a factorial treatment structure (n=10 replicate pens per treatment combination) and the proportions of time spent by birds on the 'positive' pen side (i.e. increased food amount for CPP or 'neutral' for CPA) were analysed. In experiment 1 on CPP (180 birds forming 90 pairs), three different training regimes in combination with three different testing methods were trialled: whilst during training of all birds, on one pen side the birds received the commercially recommended, restricted amount of food (R) and on the other pen side they received twice that amount (2R) (no food was present during testing). In experiment 2 (110 birds forming 40 pairs and 10 individually housed) and 3 (80 birds forming 40 pairs), further refinements were made to the experimental methods and birds were allocated to CPP treatments with food amounts 2R or 3R (vs. R) or to CPA treatments, 'social isolation' or 'unpredictable wind'. Overall, there was no evidence of aversion at testing to the pen sides with aversive stimuli during training and little evidence of preference at testing for the pen sides with increased food amounts during training. Furthermore, where statistical significance was achieved for CPP the preferences shown were very small. The most consistent result was a strong preference for the pen side birds were not previously housed on immediately before each test (P