Perception Of Animal Welfare Research Articles

Motores de las políticas de bienestar animal en las Américas

Owing to its large size and ethnic, social, cultural and economic diversity, the Americas' production volume is set to make the region one of the world's leading providers of animal foodstuffs. Animal husbandry, transport and slaughter conditions vary from country to country in response to their differing climatic and geographic characteristics. This article examines the main drivers of animal welfare in the Americas, including the standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), legislation, codes of practice and advances in education, training, research and development. It recognises the important roles played by all the various stakeholders in changing perceptions of animal welfare by raising public awareness and promoting communication and cooperation as drivers of overall change in the Americas. Regional and international organisations, public and private-sector bodies, academia and non-governmental organisations have launched a number of initiatives with encouraging results. In 2009, the OIE established the Chile-Uruguay Collaborating Centre for Animal Welfare Research, which is now the OIE Collaborating Centre for Animal Welfare and Livestock Production Systems and has recently incorporated Mexico. The Collaborating Centre works closely with official OIE Delegates and the Focal Points for Animal Welfare of national Veterinary Services. The OIE Regional Animal Welfare Strategy for the Americas was adopted in 2012, under the coordination of the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas, as a guide for developing future policies based on a regional approach. The way to achieve cultural change for improving animal welfare, operator safety and the sector's profitability is through training and knowledge transfer. The results demonstrate that the joint efforts of all institutions and the active role of the Collaborating Centre have been most effective, as have the continuing education programmes implemented by universities.

Pig, cattle and poultry farmers with a known interest in research have comparable perspectives on disease prevention and on-farm biosecurity

To motivate farmers for the implementation of preventive measures for animal health, it is crucial to understand their perspective on disease prevention and on-farm biosecurity. To study this, an online questionnaire was conducted in which 218 pig, 279 cattle and 61 poultry farmers in Flanders, Belgium have participated. The participants are farmers known for their interest in research and are therefore probably better informed on these topics.Although approximately half of the respondents in all three sectors are convinced of the positive effect of biosecurity on reduction of diseases at their farms, the farmers estimated their own level of knowledge on biosecurity as being rather low. Less than 10% of the farmers in all three sectors were able to give a correct explanation of the term ‘biosecurity’, even though the participants are likely to be better informed than the average farmer.In general, pig, cattle and poultry farmers share comparable ideas on disease prevention and biosecurity. Cattle farmers perceived animal welfare as more important. Pig farmers indicated stability of the farm more important than farmers in the other sectors. Farmers indicate that little to no barriers are present for taking preventive measures. The often observed absence or limited implementation of biosecurity and disease prevention measures is therefore likely due to insufficient motivation. Across the species, farmers indicate that insufficient information on costs and especially revenues is a major holdback for investments in preventive measures. Not surprisingly, more information on the economic benefits of measures is indicated as the primary interest for taking measures in disease prevention.The veterinarian is seen as the main source of information concerning disease prevention and biosecurity, so it is important that veterinarians have sufficient knowledge on these topics and are able to communicate this to farmers. Especially since farmers indicate that receiving more explanation by the herd veterinarian increases their interest substantially in disease prevention.

Animal welfare: towards transdisciplinarity – the European experience

The premises of animal welfare science can be found in the debate about the moral status of animals in philosophy, the introduction of the concept of stress in physiology, and the description of the behaviour of animals by ethologists. In the 1970s animal welfare became an object of study for applied research with the aim of improving the life of domesticated animals. It was first studied within disciplines, e.g. applied ethologists compared the behaviour of domesticated animals to that of their wild counterparts and identified behavioural needs. Then it became clear that stress is more a psychological concept than a physiological one. The links between stress and behavioural needs and preferences were also established. Similarly the links between animal welfare and health were investigated by looking at malaise behaviour and at stress-immunity relations. More recently, frameworks developed in human psychology were applied to animals to identify the emotions they can experience. This typically requires that researchers from one discipline engage with other disciplines for a cross fertilisation of concepts and frameworks. Animal welfare scientists now use many indicators, covering a wide range of possible disorders from abnormal behaviour, diseases, production failure, and poor emotional states. Animal scientists started to work with social scientists to relate their own perception of animal welfare and that of society at large. This interdisciplinary approach is illustrated by the Welfare Quality project where an overall assessment of animal welfare was built according to scientific evidence of what matters to animals as seen by animal scientists and of what society value as good care to these animals. We feel that animal welfare requires breaking frontiers between disciplines to create a holistic approach. We discuss whether we need to move from an interdisciplinary to a transdisciplinary approach, across and beyond disciplines, whereby not only scientists but also stakeholders and society at large can contribute to the definition of this particular research object: animal welfare.

The impact of broiler production system practices on consumer perceptions of animal welfare

This research explores the extent to which different farm management practices influence the perceived animal friendliness of broiler production systems, and how this differs between individuals. Using a conjoint design with paired comparisons, respondents evaluated broiler production systems that were described on the basis of 7 animal welfare-related practices. It was found that practices in the area of outdoor access, stocking density, and day-night rhythm were overall perceived to have a larger impact on perceptions of animal friendliness than other practices, such as transport duration or the type of breed used. However, individuals differed regarding the extent to which they believed the different farm management practices influenced the animal friendliness of the production system. Differences between individuals regarding their knowledge about and familiarity with livestock farming, degree of anthropomorphism, and their moral beliefs regarding animal welfare partly explained the relative importance individuals attached to farm management practices. The obtained insight into which welfare-related farm management practices, in consumers’ minds, most strongly contribute to animal welfare, and the existence of differences between consumers, can be helpful in the development of animal welfare-based certification schemes that are appealing to consumers, as well as the positioning of welfare concepts in the market.

The Relationship between Farmers' Perceptions and Animal Welfare Standards in Sheep Farms.

In this study, we investigated the relationship between welfare standards in sheep farms and farmers’ perceptions of factors affecting animal welfare. We developed a scale of 34 items to measure farmers’ perceptions of animal welfare. We examined the relationships among variables in farmers’ characteristics, our observations, and farmers’ expressed perceptions through a t test, variance analysis and correlation analysis. Results of the research suggested that higher welfare standards for sheep exist on farms run by farmers who have a higher perception level of animal welfare. These farmers believed that personnel and shelter conditions were more effective than veterinary inspection, feeding and other factors in terms of animal welfare. In addition, we detected a significant relationship between the farmers’ perceptions and their gender, educational level, whether they enjoyed their work, or whether they applied the custom of religious sacrifice. Our results showed that emotional and cognitive factors related to farmers’ perceptions may offer opportunities for progress in the domain of animal welfare.

The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists' Perceptions of Animal Welfare.

Simple SummaryWe studied different EU production standards and initiatives to determine whether there is still room or not for further animal welfare improvement, and which should be the best way to achieve it. Many of the adopted measures in these standards and initiatives are scientifically supported, but other aspects that are equally important for animal welfare are not included in any of them. Animal welfare improvement should consider, for each country, those aspects actually benefiting animals, but also the social expectations within each country. Economic constraints might explain the gap between what society demands, and what farm animals actually need.Information about animal welfare standards and initiatives from eight European countries was collected, grouped, and compared to EU welfare standards to detect those aspects beyond minimum welfare levels demanded by EU welfare legislation. Literature was reviewed to determine the scientific relevance of standards and initiatives, and those aspects going beyond minimum EU standards. Standards and initiatives were assessed to determine their strengths and weaknesses regarding animal welfare. Attitudes of stakeholders in the improvement of animal welfare were determined through a Policy Delphi exercise. Social perception of animal welfare, economic implications of upraising welfare levels, and differences between countries were considered. Literature review revealed that on-farm space allowance, climate control, and environmental enrichment are relevant for all animal categories. Experts’ assessment revealed that on-farm prevention of thermal stress, air quality, and races and passageways’ design were not sufficiently included. Stakeholders considered that housing conditions are particularly relevant regarding animal welfare, and that animal-based and farm-level indicators are fundamental to monitor the progress of animal welfare. The most notable differences between what society offers and what farm animals are likely to need are related to transportation and space availability, with economic constraints being the most plausible explanation.

Measuring farmers' attitudes to animal welfare and health

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to develop a behavioural framework for developing a scale to measure farmers' attitudes to animal welfare and health and to take an explorative approach to initiating development of such a scale.Design/methodology/approachA literature review was used to develop the behavioural framework. Exploratory factor analysis was then used to initiate development of a measurement scale, based on a sample of 108 Swedish livestock farmers.FindingsBased on the framework developed, the authors' data suggest unidimensionality of farmers' attitudes to animal welfare and health; and that farmers perceive animal welfare as being about animal health and comfort in particular.Research limitations/implicationsFurther research should be devoted to this area to develop a more final measurement scale. This could be done by re‐evaluating the scale obtained in this paper in both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis settings. The behavioural framework proposed here provides a basis for such scale development and a more rigid framework for evaluating and comparing farmers' attitudes to animal welfare.Practical implicationsThe behavioural framework and scale development initiated in this paper can be used by policymakers and organizations responsible for quality assurance schemes to develop policy measures and education programmes to re‐train farmers' behaviour into a system that supports higher animal welfare and health standards.Originality/valueThe originality of this paper is that it develops and uses a behavioural framework based on psychological and psychometric theory to initiate development of a scale to measure farmers' attitudes to animal welfare and health.

Animal science and veterinary student perception of farm animal welfare practices

This study was part of a larger study conducted by Texas AgriLife Extension Service surveying livestock producers, livestock market employees, and students studying animal agriculture to determine their perceptions of animal agriculture's animal welfare practices as well as their understanding of Beef Quality Assurance (BQA). This paper focuses on students engaged in the study of production animal agriculture. To identify students' overall perception of animal welfare in production agriculture, five constructs were developed. The five constructs of animal welfare used in this study were: (1) production agriculture; (2) production methods; (3) attitudes toward animals in general; (4) attitudes toward animals in production agriculture; and (5) production practices. In addition, students were surveyed to assess their basic knowledge of BQA practices. Overall, results indicated that students felt production agriculture was doing a good job as it relates to animal welfare, with favorable attitudes toward current animal agriculture production practices. Student responses to the BQA-related questions indicated a lack of knowledge of BQA principles.

The experience of animal welfare inspections as perceived by Danish livestock farmers: A qualitative research approach

Animal welfare control carried out by the authorities by using unannounced on-farm inspection has been expanding in Denmark during the past 10 years. In the EU among others, third-party audit and inspection of animal welfare connected to private labels or as a requirement from the food industry is a growing field. The present study was conducted to bring the farmers' experience of the inspection of animal welfare legislation into the discussion about on-farm animal welfare assessment, and the perceived need for third-party audit. Subsequent to unannounced farm inspections, 12 farmers were interviewed using a semi-qualitative interview technique. The results show that the farmers on the one hand perceived animal welfare inspections as necessary and inevitable, mainly based on a belief that not all farmers comply with the law; at the same time, farmers felt that inspections were generally unfair. In addition, they expressed the view that the inspections were carried out in very different ways between farms. Therefore, the farmers believe that the animal welfare inspection creates a feeling of certainty, because it protects the sector, but also at the same time, produces uncertainty. The analysis also shows a challenge in the communication between the farmers and the inspectors about animal welfare, related to conflicts between languages from different domains. It is suggested that more room for reflection on animal welfare should be taken into account in the future.

Sperm production and testicular development of broiler breeder males reared on shortened growth cycles

Feed restriction is an important tool used in the rearing of broiler breeders to control growth and maintain BW. Feed restriction during the growing phase typically provides 60 to 80% less feed than the birds would consume if provided feed ad libitum, resulting in a perceived animal welfare issue. Because males are typically more rigorously feed restricted than females, this is thought to be especially stressful to the growing cockerels. During this time, the reproductive systems of the males are undergoing formative stages, and improper management can have lifelong effects on their reproductive performance. Therefore, the objective of this study was to rear males under feed management programs that would require less severe feed restriction while still rearing replacement breeder males to the recommended target BW of 3.060 kg at 24, 21, 18, 15, and 12 wk of age, respectively. Males were placed at 3-wk intervals so that all males were light stimulated on the same calendar date and at the same time and BW but at different ages. A total of 5 treatment groups were used, based on age of the male at light stimulation. All males were reared in the same light-controlled house at the University of Arkansas Research Farm. Males were light stimulated and testicular development, semen analysis, fertility, and mating activity were recorded for each group of males. To measure semen production, males were housed in individual cages, with 24 males from each treatment group tested. Males light stimulated at 18 wk of age had the highest semen volume (0.46 mL), followed by males light stimulated at 24 (0.31 mL), 15 (0.29 mL), 21 (0.27 mL) and 12 wk of age (0.27 mL), respectively. Sperm count per ejaculate was highest for the males light stimulated at 18 wk of age, followed by males light stimulated at 21, 24, 15, and 12 wk of age, respectively. Males that were 21 wk of age or older at the time of light stimulation responded quicker to light stimulation than did younger males.

Research Article: Animal Welfare The Impact of Customized Lectures on Knowledge and Perceptions of Veterinary Students on Animal Welfare and Related Legislations

A study was designed to investigate the knowledge and perceptions of animal welfare and related legislations among graduating Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine students from the University of Nairobi, Kenya. A questionnaire was designed and administered to assess understanding, poor attributes, good provisions, legislations’, knowledge and sources of general information on animal welfare. The percentage responses to the questions before and after the customized lecture series were determined and differences compared using a paired t test. The level of awareness of animal welfare issues among students before and after the customized lectures was 33.11% and 68.03% respectively. Significant differences at p ≤ 0.05 on all the attributes assessed was observed. p=0.0056 on the understanding of animal welfare, p=0.0232 on what constitutes poor animal welfare and p=0.025 on conditions necessary to ensure a state of good animal welfare. A 50% increase in awareness of legislations on animal welfare was recorded after the lecture series. The major source of information on animal welfare was from the lecture series offered. This study confirms that inclusion of the customized lectures on animal welfare in training veterinary students was effective in promoting awareness on animal welfare. The contents of these lectures should be included in relevant subjects taught to students at the Faculties of Veterinary Medicine. Keywords: Animal welfare, Five freedoms, Legislations, Perceptions.

Expert opinion as 'validation' of risk assessment applied to calf welfare

BackgroundRecently, a Risk Assessment methodology was applied to animal welfare issues in a report of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on intensively housed calves.MethodsBecause this is a new and potentially influential approach to derive conclusions on animal welfare issues, a so-called semantic-modelling type 'validation' study was conducted by asking expert scientists, who had been involved or quoted in the report, to give welfare scores for housing systems and for welfare hazards.ResultsKendall's coefficient of concordance among experts (n = 24) was highly significant (P < 0.001), but low (0.29 and 0.18 for housing systems and hazards respectively). Overall correlations with EFSA scores were significant only for experts with a veterinary or mixed (veterinary and applied ethological) background. Significant differences in welfare scores were found between housing systems, between hazards, and between experts with different backgrounds. For example, veterinarians gave higher overall welfare scores for housing systems than ethologists did, probably reflecting a difference in their perception of animal welfare.Systems with the lowest scores were veal calves kept individually in so-called "baby boxes" (veal crates) or in small groups, and feedlots. A suckler herd on pasture was rated as the best for calf welfare. The main hazards were related to underfeeding, inadequate colostrum intake, poor stockperson education, insufficient space, inadequate roughage, iron deficiency, inadequate ventilation, poor floor conditions and no bedding. Points for improvement of the Risk Assessment applied to animal welfare include linking information, reporting uncertainty and transparency about underlying values.ConclusionThe study provides novel information on expert opinion in relation to calf welfare and shows that Risk Assessment applied to animal welfare can benefit from a semantic modelling approach.

Consumer Perception of Animal Welfare and Livestock Production in the Araucania Region , Chile

A B S T R A C T Given the importance of animal welfare (AW) in developed countries, a survey was carried out among 384 consumers in Temuco, Chile, to establish their knowledge and perceptions about animals handling during production, to detect preferences for meat produced under AW principles, their willingness to pay a higher price for this and to distinguish different consumer segments. Approximately 60% of people surveyed knew about livestock management practices, half of them considered that these practices had a negative effect on the animals, but only 32.1% have changed their meat consumption habits due to this. Seventy percent of the people surveyed had over 50% of knowledge about AW aspects. There is a strong preference and willingness to pay a higher price for meat produced under AW principles. Consumers have a positive perception of the fact that the meat that they consume comes from pasture-fed animals, raised in the open, and raised, transported and slaughtered following humane principles. Three segments were identified by using cluster analysis: the most numerous (58.6%) considers confinement and feeding with concentrates as positive; the second group (25.5%) showed a strong rejection of the use of hormones, feeding with broiler litter and concentrates, and places a positive value on raising animals in the open. The smallest segment (15.4%) placed the highest value on humane treatment of the animals, plus a positive value on concentrates use and rejected confined raising. The conclusion is that a large part of the population perceives AW as a desirable condition when purchasing beef.

Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently?

Animal welfare is of increasing importance in livestock production and consumption debates. However, discordance exists between citizens' and farmers' perception of animal welfare. Since the search for, and the realization of improvements towards farm animal welfare is strongly driven by citizen expectations, it is of utmost importance to better understand this perceptual discordance. A quantitative study was done in Flanders, Belgium during 2006, including citizens as well as farmers, to obtain a detailed insight in the way the multi-dimensional concept of farm animal welfare is valued. This allowed to discriminate between issues of agreement and disagreement. In general, a similar interpretation of farm animal welfare in terms of animal welfare related aspect's ranking was found. Differences were mainly related to aspects dealing with the ability to engage in natural behaviour on the one hand and with production process-related aspects on the other hand. Citizens evaluate the current state of animal welfare as rather problematic, while farmers report a more satisfactory evaluation of the present condition of farm animal welfare. Especially differing opinions regarding the ability to engage in natural behaviour, together with aspects related to pain, stress and the availability of space seem to contribute to the discordance between farmers and citizens in terms of evaluative beliefs.

Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: A quantitative study in The Netherlands

Abstract To study societal perception of animal welfare in The Netherlands and to search for intervention possibilities to influence this perception, 1074 randomly selected Dutch respondents completed a questionnaire on animal welfare. We analysed 15 propositions (4-point Likert scale) and through factor analysis we defined four factors of societal perception of animal welfare: Human–Animal Hierarchy (HAH), Use of animals for Human Consumption (HC), Life Quality of farm animals (LQ), and Farmers' Image (FI). On average, Dutch society perceived farm animal welfare as slightly positive. We distinguished perception into the elements: Values, Convictions, Emotional Experiences (with animals and farms) and Factual Knowledge. Factors HAH and HC are considered as convictions in Dutch society. LQ is the only element significantly influenced by values. Pet owners and people without farm experiences perceived FI and LQ as being less positive than people without a pet or with farm experiences. These emotional experiences with farms, farm animals and/or pets are important elements of perception. FI is the only element influenced through factual knowledge. Hence, it is important that people experience and learn what farming entails and how farm animals live, e.g. through farm visits.

Consumer Attitudes Towards the Development of Animal-Friendly Husbandry Systems

Recent policy developments in the area of livestock husbandry have suggested that, from the perspective of optimizing animal welfare, new animal husbandry systems should be developed that provide opportunities for livestock animals to be raised in environments where they are permitted to engage in “natural behavior.” It is not known whether consumers regard animal husbandry issues as important, and whether they differentiate between animal husbandry and other animal welfare issues. The responsibility for the development of such systems is allocated jointly between farmers, regulators, different actors in the food chain, and consumers. This research focuses on understanding consumer attitudes and preferences regarding the development and introduction of such systems, to ensure that they are acceptable to consumers as well as producers, regulators, and scientists. Consumer perceptions of animal welfare and animal husbandry practices were evaluated using quantitative consumer survey, which focused on two animal husbandry issues – farmed pigs and farmed fish. Following pilot work, 1000 representative Dutch consumers were sampled about their attitudes to either pig or fish husbandry. The results indicated that consumers think about animal welfare in terms of two broad categories related to their health and living environment, but do not think about welfare issues at a more detailed level. Greater concern was expressed about the welfare of pigs compared to fish. Consumer trust in labeling also emerged as an important issue, since consumers need to trust different food chain actors with responsibility for promoting animal welfare, and are reluctant to consider the details of animal husbandry systems. As a consequence, a transparent, enforceable, and traceable monitoring system for animal welfare friendly products is likely to be important for consumers.

Qualitative Stakeholder Analysis for the Development of Sustainable Monitoring Systems for Farm Animal Welfare

Continued concern for animal welfare may be alleviated when welfare would be monitored on farms. Monitoring can be characterized as an information system where various stakeholders periodically exchange relevant information. Stakeholders include producers, consumers, retailers, the government, scientists, and others. Valuating animal welfare in the animal-product market chain is regarded as a key challenge to further improve the welfare of farm animals and information on the welfare of animals must, therefore, be assessed objectively, for instance, through monitoring. Interviews with Dutch stakeholder representatives were conducted to identify their perceptions about the monitoring of animal welfare. Stakeholder perceptions were characterized in relation to the specific perspectives of each stakeholder. While producers tend to perceive welfare from a production point of view, consumers will use visual images derived from traditional farming and from the animals’ natural environments. Scientists’ perceptions of animal welfare are affected by the need to measure welfare with quantifiable parameters. Retailers and governments (policy makers) have views of welfare that are derived from their relationships with producers, consumers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and scientists. All interviewed stakeholder representatives stated that animal welfare is important. They varied in the extent to which they weighted economic considerations relative to concern for the animals’ welfare. Many stakeholders emphasized the importance of communication in making a monitoring system work. Overall, the perspectives for the development of a sustainable monitoring system that substantially improves farm animal welfare were assessed as being poor in the short term. However, a reliable system could be initiated under certain conditions, such as integrated chains and with influential and motivated stakeholders. A scheme is described with attention points for the development of sustainable monitoring systems for farm animal welfare in the long term.

Dealing with Ambivalence: Farmers' and Consumers' Perceptions of Animal Welfare in Livestock Breeding

The results of an empirical study intoperceptions of the treatment of farm animals inthe Netherlands are presented. A qualitativeapproach, based on in-depth interviews withmeat livestock farmers and consumers was chosenin order to assess motivations behindperceptions and to gain insight into the waypeople deal with possible discrepancies betweentheir perceptions and their daily practices.Perceptions are analyzed with the help of aframe of reference, which consists ofvalues, norms, convictions, interests, andknowledge. The perceptions of the interviewed farmersare quite consistent and without exceptionpositive: according to them, nothing is wrongwith animal welfare in livestock breeding. Theperceptions of the consumers we interviewed aremore divergent, but generally negative. Bothgroups show ambivalence as a result ofdiscrepancies between perceptions and behavior.Although the consumers share the impressionthat the living conditions of livestock animalsare far from optimal, most of them still buyand eat meat from the meat industry. Thefarmers believe the welfare of their animals isgood, but, as frequent defensive utterancesshow, they feel uncomfortable with expressed orunexpressed accusations of mistreating animals.The ways the respondents deal with thisambivalence were analysed by drawing ontheories of dissonance reduction and distancing devices. Catherine and Raphael Larrere(Larrere and Larrere, 2000) argue thatanimal rearing is a hierarchical relationshipwhose rules are to be found in the fiction of adomestic contract. We argue that the questionis not whether there should be a domesticcontract, because such a contract seems alreadyaccepted. However, since values and normsdiffer widely, not only among meat livestockfarmers and consumers, but also amongconsumers, the question remains as to whosevalues and norms should form the basis of thedomestic contract.

The behavior of gestating swine housed in the Hurnik-Morris system

A group housing system for sows, the Hurnik-Morris (HM) system, was developed to address several of the perceived animal welfare limitations of existing housing methods. The HM system permits socially coordinated eating and resting, controlled and socially undisturbed feed intake, physical exercise, and regular exposure to boars. The HM system effectively uses and reinforces the behavioral phenomenon of the social synchronization of feeding and provides a less restrictive housing environment. The system provides housing for sows in small groups and an individual, non-competitive feeding environment using electronic feeding compartments. Gilts reared during gestation in the HM system were observed to spend less time lying in sternal recumbency (31 vs 21%; P = .004) and performing stereotypies (.10 vs .56%; P = .034) and to spend more time participating in social activities (1.4 vs .19%; P = .0007) than similar gilts kept in gestation crates (GC). The HM sows revealed a significantly longer latent period to postprandial lying than did GC gilts (64 vs 32 min; P = .0001). The order of gilt entry into the feeding compartments tended to be more consistent than the sequence of feeding compartments being entered (W = .57 vs .41; P = .06). This indicates that social factors seemed to be more important than spatial ones in determining the order of entry into the feeder compartments.

The ecological basis of behaviour

Ecology comprises many topics, but is conveniently divided in respect of the laws governing the physiology of animals, populations, and the communities or the interactions of populations. Behaviour is not restricted to individuals alone. It also extends to the behaviours between individuals of the same species as well as the behaviours between individuals and populations of different species. The primary behavioural categories are those relating to reproduction, sustenance, development and survival which involve intra- and inter-species competition as well as the influence of the abiotic and biotic environment. Behaviour is a phenotypic expression of the interaction of the genotype (of individuals or species) with the environment. This expression evolves from the stimuli that motivate animals to an inborn activity, such as the sucking response of the calf upon contacting the teat of the cow, or a learned or practiced activity, such as coital attempts by inexperienced bulls and the competent performance of the experienced bulls. Man observes behaviours of animals and infers a cause or reason. Such inference must derive from a full knowledge of the behaviour and of the variability of the behaviour of species — a knowledge that is gained after much work and over an extended time. Interestingly, man's observations and inferences are species-specific behaviours which also have a variability in performance. Man's evolution from the hunter behaviours to the recent husbandry behaviours must have involved much change in concepts, namely a revolution in behaviour and perceptions. Man is presently in a state of evaluating again his relationship to other species of animals in respect of his perceptions of animal welfare and the ethology of animal life.