Abstract: Animal welfare, or well-being, is a social issue with ethical, scientific, political, and aesthetic properties. Answering questions about the welfare of animals requires scientific definition, assessment, solutions, and public acceptance. With respect to the actual well-being of the animal, most issues are centered on how the animal “feels” when managed within a specific level of confinement, during special agricultural practices (e.g., tail docking, beak trimming, etc.) and handling. Questions of this nature may require exploration of animal cognition, motivation, perception, and emotional states in addition to more commonly recognized indicators of well-being. Several general approaches have emerged for solving problems concerning animal well-being in intensive production systems: environmental, genetic, and therapeutic. Environmental approaches involve modifying existing systems to accommodate specific welfare concerns or development of alternative systems. Genetic approaches involve changing the behavioral and (or) physiological nature of the animal to reduce or eliminate behaviors that are undesirable within intensive system. Therapeutic approaches of a physical (tail docking, beak trimming) and physiological (drug and nutritional therapy) nature bring both concern and promise with regard to the reduction of confinement stress. Finally, the recent focus on commodity quality assurance programs may indirectly provide benefits for animal well-being. Although research in the area of animal well-being will provide important information for better animal management, handling, care, and the physical design of intensive production systems there is still some uncertainty regarding public acceptance. The aesthetics of modern intensive production systems may have as much to do with public acceptance as with science.

Abstract: Relatively little is known about the relationship between social behavior and specific cognitive abilities of the chicken. It is uncertain whether dominant birds have a cognitive advantage over subordinate birds that might facilitate their superior position in the social hierarchy. Likewise, it is unknown whether subordinate birds compete successfully with higher ranking birds because their cognitive capacities compensate for physical deficits. In this study, the relationship between the chicken's position in the dominance hierarchy and its performance on a cognitive task was explored. Ten pairs of New Hampshire domestic roosters (Gallus gallus) were observed to determine dominance or subordinance within dyads. All birds were then trained and tested on a visual discrimination learning task. Discriminative stimuli were orange and green plastic discs. Correct stimuli (orange or green) were randomly assigned to birds. Placement of the discs (left or right of center) was also randomly assigned and counterbalanced to avoid a side bias. Birds were rewarded with food for pecking at the correct disc. Criterion for task completion was 80% correct responses on three consecutive test sessions or 86% correct on two consecutive sessions. All subjects met the test criterion. The number of trials to criterion was compared between dominant and subordinate birds using a paired t-test. No difference was found in performance between dominant and subordinate birds (p > 0.05) suggesting that in chickens, ability to learn a novel visual discrimination task is not well correlated with rank. Additional studies, particularly using different learning paradigms, are needed to confirm these results.

Abstract: Worm-running is behaviour in which a chick runs carrying a worm-like object while flock mates follow and attempt to grab the object from its beak. We hypothesised that social ranks based on worm-running frequency are stable over time and are positively correlated with social ranks based on success in aggressive interactions when older. At 8-12 days of age, we scored worm-running in 17 groups of 12 female White Leghorn chicks during three 10-min tests. Based on instantaneous scans at 5-s intervals, the bird carrying the `worm' most often was placed in rank one and so on down the rank order. These tests were repeated at 68-70 days of age. An aggression index for each bird was calculated as the number of aggressive acts given, divided by the number given and received, during three 1-h observation periods when the birds were 68-70 days. Ranks obtained in worm-running tests were positively correlated over the two age periods (P<0.05) but were not correlated with ranks based on the aggression index (P>0.05). Our results indicate that worm-running ranks are not predictive of success in aggressive interactions. Instead, worm-running fits some criteria for play.