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: In the normal chick, conspicuous visual stimuli induce targetting and pecking together, with vocalization. All three are abolished by lesion of the intercollicular area (ICo) or of connections passing through its medial margin. After such lesions, chicks also cease to treat significant visual stimuli as if they were startling and exciting, and may delay response as a result. However, they are still able to recognise, orient accurately to, and respond appropriately to, a variety of complex visual stimuli (e.g. food grains, copulation object). In addition, they are little affected by strange surroundings. Lesion evidence suggests the mammalian subcollicular area to have similar functions to the ICo and to be homologous with it. A route (present in bird), which is well-known in mammals for its association with threat, defense and escape evoked by strange and frightening objects (amygdala-diencephalic periventricular system-central mesencephalic grey, A-DPS-CMG) is stimuli via the 2 ICo (subcollicular area). Two different mechanisms may be involved caudal to the ICo. One consists of tectal afferents which might modulate the evocation of targetting, pecking and other responses via the tectum. The other is the predorsal system of tectal efferents which may mediate such responses. Classical syndromes of tameness and unresponsiveness produced by various interruptions of the A-DPS-CMG route may depend on interruption of connections to these midbrain mechanisms. Attack is depressed by ICo lesions as one aspect of reduced responsiveness to conspicuous and startling visual stimuli. Avoidance, which is apparently mediated by a separate system, much as in Anura, is facilitated.

Abstract: Lateralization of the brain appeared early in evolution and many of its features appear to have been retained, possibly even in humans. We now have a considerable amount of information on the different forms of lateralization in a number of species, and the commonalities of these are discussed, but there has been relatively little investigation of the advantages of being lateralized. This article reports new findings on the differences between lateralized and nonlateralized chicks. The lateralized chicks were exposed to light for 24 h on day 19 of incubation, a treatment known to lead to lateralization of a number of visually guided responses, and the nonlateralized chicks were incubated in the dark. When they were feeding, the lateralized chicks were found to detect a stimulus resembling a raptor with shorter latency than nonlateralized chicks. This difference was not a nonspecific effect caused by the light-exposed chicks being more distressed by the stimulus. Instead, it appears to be a genuine advantage conferred by having a lateralized brain. It is suggested that having a lateralized brain allows dual attention to the tasks of feeding (right eye and left hemisphere) and vigilance for predators (left eye and right hemisphere). Nonlateralized chicks appear to perform these dual tasks less efficiently than lateralized ones. Reference is made to other species in discussing these results.