Electro-Immobilization Versus Mechanical Restraint in an Avoid-Avoid Choice Test for Ewes
A Y-maze avoid-avoid choice test was used to elucidate pregnant ewes' relative preference for electro-immobilization as opposed to restraint by a squeeze-tilt table. Choices in successive trials evaluating three commercial electro-immobilizers were: electro-immobilizer-13, 13 and 8% for respect...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of animal science 1986-06, Vol.62 (6), p.1469-1480 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | A Y-maze avoid-avoid choice test was used to elucidate pregnant ewes' relative preference for electro-immobilization as opposed to restraint by a squeeze-tilt table. Choices in successive trials evaluating three commercial electro-immobilizers were: electro-immobilizer-13, 13 and 8% for respective models; squeeze-tilt table-79, 57 and 71%; and no choice-8, 30 and 21%. In all trials combined, 56% of the ewes never chose the electro-immobilizer after once experiencing it, while 94% did choose the squeeze-tilt table one or more times after being restrained by it. Most ewes became more willing to enter the table as experience with it increased, but those that had been both electro-immobilized and table-restrained became more hesitant to pass the test facility's entrance gate as these experiences increased. Ewes accepted a feed reward only reluctantly if at all after being electro-immobilized, but readily after table restraint. Electro-immobilization was clearly more aversive to the ewes than was restraint by a squeeze/tilt table. When restraint by either electro-immobilization or squeeze/tilt table is necessary, use of the table would be indicated in terms of its being less aversive. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0021-8812 1525-3163 |
DOI: | 10.2527/jas1986.6261469x |