TY - JOUR
T1 - Qualitative behavioural assessment of the motivation for feed in sheep in response to altered body condition score
AU - Stockman, CA
AU - Collins, T
AU - Barnes, AL
AU - Miller, D
AU - Wickham, SL
AU - Verbeek, E
AU - Matthews, L
AU - Ferguson, D
AU - Wemelsfelder, F
AU - Fleming, PA
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - Qualitative behavioural assessment (QBA) has been used to quantify the expressive behaviour of animals, and
operant tests have been used to quantify measures of behavioural need. In this study we compared measures of behavioural
expression and behaviour in operant tests.Weexamined the behavioural expression of pregnant ewes of body condition score
(BCS) 2 and 3. The ewes were exposed to a feed motivation test in which they received a food reward. Pregnant ewes
(48–70 days gestation) were assessed during a food motivation test after they had been maintained at BCS 3 (n = 7) or given
a decreasing plane of nutrition that resulted in slow loss of 1 BCS unit (over 10–12 weeks; n = 7) or a fast loss of 1 BCS unit
(over 4–6 weeks; n = 7). The feed motivation test involved ewes having the opportunity to approach a food reward and then
being moved a given distance away from the reward by an automatic gate; they could then subsequently return to the feeder.
Continuous video footage of each ewe during one cycle of the gate (approaching and returning from the food reward) was
shown in random order to 11 observers who used their own descriptive terms (free-choice profiling methodology; FCP) to
score the animals using QBA. Data of the assessment were analysed with generalised Procrustes analysis (GPA), a
multivariate statistical technique associated with FCP. The research group also quantified the feeding behaviour of sheep in
the same clips. These behaviours included how sheep approached the feeder, behaviours exhibited at the feeder, and how
sheep returned from the feeder. There was consensus amongst observers in terms of their assessment of behavioural
expression of the sheep (P < 0.001). The GPA found three main dimensions of assessed behavioural expression in the
sheep, which together explained 44% of the variation observed. GPA dimension 1 differed between the three treatment
groups (P < 0.05): ewes maintained at BCS 3 scored low on GPA dimension 1 (i.e. were described as more calm/bored/
comfortable) compared with ewes that had a slow declining BCS (described as more interested/anxious/excited). GPA
dimension 2 scores were not significantly different between treatment groups. However, quantitative behaviours exhibited
by sheep during the clips were correlated with qualitative behavioural assessments made by the observers. Animals that
spent more time ‘sniffing and looking for more feed’ were attributed lower GPA 2 scores (described as more hungry/
searching/excited) (P < 0.05), and animals that ‘did not walk directly to the food reward (but stopped along the way)’ were
attributed significantly higher GPA 2 scores (more curious/intimidated/uneasy) (P < 0.01). GPA dimension 3 scores also
did not differ between the treatment groups; however, sheep that had a higher number of feeding events during the
entire 23-h feed motivation test were attributed lower GPA dimension 3 scores (they were described as more hungry/bold/
interested) (P < 0.05), and sheep that consumed a larger amount of the feed reward were attributed higher GPA dimension 3
scores (more curious/concerned/reserved) (P < 0.05). We conclude that QBA is a valuable method of assessing sheep
behavioural expression under the conditions tested, in that it provided an integrative characterisation of sheep behavioural
expression that was in agreement with quantitative behavioural measures of feeding.
AB - Qualitative behavioural assessment (QBA) has been used to quantify the expressive behaviour of animals, and
operant tests have been used to quantify measures of behavioural need. In this study we compared measures of behavioural
expression and behaviour in operant tests.Weexamined the behavioural expression of pregnant ewes of body condition score
(BCS) 2 and 3. The ewes were exposed to a feed motivation test in which they received a food reward. Pregnant ewes
(48–70 days gestation) were assessed during a food motivation test after they had been maintained at BCS 3 (n = 7) or given
a decreasing plane of nutrition that resulted in slow loss of 1 BCS unit (over 10–12 weeks; n = 7) or a fast loss of 1 BCS unit
(over 4–6 weeks; n = 7). The feed motivation test involved ewes having the opportunity to approach a food reward and then
being moved a given distance away from the reward by an automatic gate; they could then subsequently return to the feeder.
Continuous video footage of each ewe during one cycle of the gate (approaching and returning from the food reward) was
shown in random order to 11 observers who used their own descriptive terms (free-choice profiling methodology; FCP) to
score the animals using QBA. Data of the assessment were analysed with generalised Procrustes analysis (GPA), a
multivariate statistical technique associated with FCP. The research group also quantified the feeding behaviour of sheep in
the same clips. These behaviours included how sheep approached the feeder, behaviours exhibited at the feeder, and how
sheep returned from the feeder. There was consensus amongst observers in terms of their assessment of behavioural
expression of the sheep (P < 0.001). The GPA found three main dimensions of assessed behavioural expression in the
sheep, which together explained 44% of the variation observed. GPA dimension 1 differed between the three treatment
groups (P < 0.05): ewes maintained at BCS 3 scored low on GPA dimension 1 (i.e. were described as more calm/bored/
comfortable) compared with ewes that had a slow declining BCS (described as more interested/anxious/excited). GPA
dimension 2 scores were not significantly different between treatment groups. However, quantitative behaviours exhibited
by sheep during the clips were correlated with qualitative behavioural assessments made by the observers. Animals that
spent more time ‘sniffing and looking for more feed’ were attributed lower GPA 2 scores (described as more hungry/
searching/excited) (P < 0.05), and animals that ‘did not walk directly to the food reward (but stopped along the way)’ were
attributed significantly higher GPA 2 scores (more curious/intimidated/uneasy) (P < 0.01). GPA dimension 3 scores also
did not differ between the treatment groups; however, sheep that had a higher number of feeding events during the
entire 23-h feed motivation test were attributed lower GPA dimension 3 scores (they were described as more hungry/bold/
interested) (P < 0.05), and sheep that consumed a larger amount of the feed reward were attributed higher GPA dimension 3
scores (more curious/concerned/reserved) (P < 0.05). We conclude that QBA is a valuable method of assessing sheep
behavioural expression under the conditions tested, in that it provided an integrative characterisation of sheep behavioural
expression that was in agreement with quantitative behavioural measures of feeding.
KW - Ewes
KW - Free-choice profiling
KW - Pregnant
U2 - 10.1071/AN13020
DO - 10.1071/AN13020
M3 - Article
SN - 1836-5787
VL - 54
SP - 922
EP - 929
JO - Animal Production Science
JF - Animal Production Science
ER -