Essential Behavioural Needs: The Mixed Motivation Approach

  • W. Bessei
Part of the Current Topics in Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science book series (CTVM, volume 8)

Abstract

Although in recent decades it has been generally accepted that the motivation of behaviour is determined both by genetic and environmental factors, there is still a tendency to emphasise the one or the other component. This may be due to the fact that very little work has been done in the field of behavioural genetics in farm animals. There is no doubt that the statistical methods used in animal and plant breeding can be applied to ethological science as well, as has been shown in a wide range of studies in laboratory animals such as drosophila, rats and mice. The lack of corresponding studies in farm animals may be either because the number of experimental animals is often limited and insufficient for genetic analyses, or because detailed observation methods do not allow large numbers of individuals to be observed. It may be argued that genetic analyses of behaviour would lead to the neglect of the environmental effects. But, as the environmental component is an important prerequisite in quantitative genetics, the danger of overlooking the environmental effect is not high.

Keywords

Dust Cage Melin Ethol ECSC 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bareham, J.R., 1972. Effects of cages and semi-intensive deep litter pens on the behaviour, adrenal response and production in two strains of laying hens. Br. Vet. J. 128, 153–162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Black, A.J. and Hughes, B.O., 1974. Patterns of comfort behaviour and activity in domestic fowls: A comparison between cages and pens. Br. Vet. J. 130, 23–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyer, J.-P., Melin, J.-M. and Bourdens, P., 1973. Activity test on young pheasants. Ann. Génét. Sél. Anim. 5, 417–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eskeland, B., 1976. Methods of observation and measurement of different parameters as an assessment of bird welfare. Proc. Vth Europ. Poultry Conf. Malta, Vol. II, 988–998.Google Scholar
  5. Faure, J.-M. and Folmer, J.-C., 1975. Etude génétique de l’activité précoce en open-field du jeune poussin. Ann. Génét. Sél. Anim. 7, 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hamburger, V., 1963. Some aspects of the embryology of behaviour. Quart. Rev. Biol. 38, 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. von Holst, E., 1969. Zur Verhaltensphysiologie bei Tieren und Menschen Bd. I. Piper Verlag Munich, 1. Auflage.Google Scholar
  8. Hughes, B.O. and Black, A.J., 1974. The effect of environmental factors on activity, selected behaviour patterns and ‘fear’ of fowls in cages and pens. Br. Poult. Sci. 15, 375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jezierski, T. and Bessei, W., 1978. Der Einfluss von Genotyp und Umwelt auf die lokomotorische AktivatOt von Legehennen in Käfigen. Arch. Geflügelkunde 42, 159–166.Google Scholar
  10. Jones, R.B., 1978. Activities of chicks in their home cages and in an open-field. Br. Poultry Sci., 19, 725–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McClearn, G.E., 1961. Genotype and mouse activity. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 54, 1674.Google Scholar
  12. Saleh, K. and Bessei, W., 1978. Beitrag zur genetischer laufactivitfft von wachteln. Deutscher gesellschaft fdr zwichtungskunde. Stuttgart, Hohenheim.Google Scholar
  13. Savory, C.J., Wood-Gush, D.G.M. and Duncan, I.J.H., 1978. Feeding behaviour in a population of domestic fowls in the wild. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 4, 13–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ECSC, EEC, EAEC, Brussels-Luxembourg 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Bessei

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations