Conditioning Methods For Farm Animals: A Mini Review

Yıl 2012, Cilt: 31 Sayı: 2, 1 - 10, 01.06.2012

Christopher A. Varnon Abigail L. Martin Charles I. Abramson

Öz

This review briefly surveys the range of conditioning methods used in the study of learning for economically important farm animals. We begin by discussing the importance of conditioning methods, provide an overview of non-associative and associative learning and follow by showing how these methods are applied to chickens, cows, horses, goats and sheep. Information on general resources is also provided.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Conditioning, methods, Farm animals

Çiftlik Hayvanlarında Şartlandırma Yöntemleri

Öz

Bu makalede ekonomik öneme sahip çiftlik hayvanlarının eğitilmesinde kullanılan şartlandırma metodları ele alınmıştır. Öncelikle şartlandırma yöntemlerinin önemi değerlendirilmiş, birarada-toplu yaşam ile ilişkili olan ve olmayan öğrenme konusunda bilgiler verilmiş ve ardından bu metodların tavuklarda, ineklerde, atlarda, keçilerde ve koyunlarda kullanımlarına ilişkin genel bir bakış açısı sunulmuştur. Makalede aynı zamanda genel araştırmalar hakkında da bilgilere yer verilmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Şartlandırma teknikleri, Çiftlik, hayvanları

Kaynakça

• Abramson, C. I., 1994. A Primer of Invertebrate Learning. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
• Arnold, N.A., Ng, K.T., Jongman, E.C., Hems- worth, P.H., 2008. Avoidance of tape-recorded milking facility noise by dairy heifers in a Y maze choice task. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 109, 201-210.
• Beecroft, R.S., 1966. Classical conditioning. Psychonomic Press. Goleta, CA.
• Berkhoudt, H., van der Reijden, D., Meijmans, M., 1987. An automatic pellet dispensor for pre- cise control of feeding topography in granivorous birds. J Exp Anal Behav, 48, 435-438.
• Broder, J.M., MacFadden, A.J., Cosens, L.M., Rosenstein, D.S., Harrison, T.M., 2008. Use of positive reinforcement conditioning to monitor pregnancy in an unanesthetized snow leopard (Uncia uncia) via transabdominal ultrasound. Zoo Biol, 27, 78-85.
• de Ameida, M.B., Schild, A.L., Brasil, N.D.A., Quevedo, P.S., Fiss, L., Pfister J.A., Riet-Correa, F., 2009. Conditioned aversion in sheep induced by Baccharis coridifolia. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 117, 197-200.
• Dabrowska, B., Harmata, W., Lenkiewicz, Z., Schiffer, Z., Wojtusiak, R.J., 1981. Colour per- ception in cows. Behav Process, 6, 1-10.
• Dawkins, M.S., 2006. Through animal eyes: What behaviour tells us. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 100, 4-10.
• Dougherty, D.M., Lewis, P., 1991. Stimulus generalization, discrimination learning, and peak shift in horses. J Exp Anal Behav, 56, 97-104.
• Dougherty, D.M., Lewis, P., 1992. Matching by horses on several concurrent variable-interval schedules. Behav Process, 26, 69-76.
• Dougherty, D.M., Lewis, P., 1993. Generaliza- tion of a tactile stimulus in horses. J Exp Anal Behav, 59, 521-528.
• Ferguson, D.L., Rosales-Ruiz, J., 2001. Loading the problem loader: The effects of target training and shaping on trailer-loading behavior of horses. J App Behav Anal, 34, 409-424.
• Foster, T.M., Matthews, L.R., Temple, W., Pol- ing, A., 1997. Concurrent schedule performance in domestic goats: persistent undermatching. Be- hav Process, 40, 231-237.
• Foster, T.M., Temple, T., Robertson, B. Nair, V., Poling, A., 1996. Concurrent-schedule perfor- mance in dairy cows: Persistent undermatching. J Exp Anal Behav, 65, 57-80.
• Gabor, V., Gerken, M., 2012. Cognitive testing in horses using a computer based apparatus. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 139, 242-250.
• Greenberg, G., Haraway, M. M., 1998. Compara- tive psychology: A handbook. New York: Gar- land.
• Hanggi, E.B., 2003. Discrimination learning based in relative size concepts in horses (Equus caballus). Appl Anim Behav Sci, 83, 201-213.
• Honig, W. K., & Staddon, W. K., 1977. Hand- book of operant behavior. Prentice-Hall: Eng- lewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
• Kilgour, R., Foster, T. M., Temple, W., Mat- thews, L. R., Bremner, K. J., 1991. Operant tech- nology applied to solving farm animal problems, An assessment. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 30, 141- 166.
• Lagadic, H., & Faure, J.M., 1988. Operant condi- tioning and use of space by caged laying hens. Behav Process, 16, 43-56.
• Lane, H., 1961. Operant control of vocalizing in the chicken. J Exp Anal Behav, 4, 171-177.
• Langbein, J., Siebert, K., Nurnberg, G., 2009. On the use of automated learning device by group- housed dwarf goats: Do goats seek cognitive challenges? Appl Anim Behav Sci, 120, 150-158.
• Laule, G.E., Thurston, R.H., Alford, P.L., Bloomsmith, M.A., 1996. Training to reliably ob- tain blood and urine samples from a diabetic chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Zoo Biol, 15, 587- 591.
• Lee, C., Henshall, J.M., Wark, T.J., Crossman, C.C., Reed, M.T., Brewer, H.G., O’Grady, J., Fisher, A.D., 2009. Associative learning by cattle to enable effective and ethical virtual fences. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 119, 15-22.
• Malamed, R., Berger, J., Bain, M.J., Kass, P., Spier, S.J., 2010. Retrospective evaluation of crib-biting and windsucking behaviours and owner-perceived behavioural traits as risk factors for colic in horses. Equine Vet J, 42(8), 686–92.
• Manuelian, C.L., Albanell, E., Salama, A.A.K., Caja, G., 2010. Conditioned aversion to olive tree leaves (Olea europaea L.) in goats and sheep. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 128, 45-49.
• Martin, T.I., Zentall, T.R., Lawrence, L., 2006. Simple discrimination reversals in the domestic 10 horse (Equus caballus): Effect of discriminative stimulus modality on learning to learn. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 101, 328-338.
• Mason, G., Clubb, R., Lathan, N., Vickery, S., 2007. Why and how should we use environmen- tal enrichment to tackle stereotypic behaviour? Appl Anim Behav Sci, 102, 163-188.
• Matthews, L.R., Temple, W., 1979. Concurrent schedule assessment of food preference in cows. J Exp Anal of Behav, 32, 245-254.
• Miyashita, Y., Nakajima, S., Imada, H., 2000. Differential outcome effect in the horse. J Exp Anal of Behav, 74, 245-253.
• Myers, R.D., Mesker, D.C., 1960. Operant re- sponding in a horse under several schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal of Behav, 3, 161-164.
• Pajor, E.A., Rushen, J., de Passill A.M.B., 2000. Aversion learning techniques to evaluate dairy cattle handling practices. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 69, 89-102.
• Razran, G., 1971. Mind in Evolution: An East- West Synthesis of Learned Behavior and Cogni- tion. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
• Rybarczyl, P., Koba, Y., Rushen, J., Tanida, H., de Passillé, A.M., 2001. Can cows discriminate people by their faces? Appl Anim Behav Sci, 74, 175 189.
• Sandler, B.E., Van Gelder, G.A., Karas, G.G., Buck, W.B., 1971. An operant feeding device for sheep. J Exp Anal of Behav, 15, 95-96.
• Shepherdson, D.J., 1998. Tracing the Path of Environmental Enrichment in Zoos. In D.J. Sheperdson, J.D Mellen, M. Hutchins (Eds.), Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1-12.
• Tarou, L.R., Bashaw, M.J., 2007. Maximizing the effectiveness of environmental enrichment: Sug- gestions from the experimental analysis of behav- ior. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 102, 189-204.
• Thompson, R.F., Spencer, W.A., 1966. A model phenomenon for the study of neuronal substrates of behavior. Psychol Rev, 73,16-43.
• Watanabe, S., 2007. How animal psychology contributes to animal welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 106, 193-202.
• Wechsler, B., Lea, S.E.G., 2007. Adaptation by learning: Its significance for farm animal hus- bandry. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 108, 197-214.
• Wenzel, B.M., Baldwin, B.A., Tschirgi, R.D., 1964. Operant conditioning of goats. J Exp Anal of Behav, 7, 263-266.
• Zimbardo, P.G., 1992. Psychology and Life. 13th ed., Harper Collins, New York.
• Zimmerman, P.H., Koene, P., 1998. The effect of frustrative nonreward on vocalusations and be- havior in the laying hen, Gallus gallus domesti- cus. Behav Process, 44, 73-79.