J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J. Anim Sci. 1986. 62:1469-1480.
© 1986 American Society of Animal Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grandin, T.
Right arrow Articles by Thurmon, J. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Grandin, T.
Right arrow Articles by Thurmon, J. C.

Electro-Immobilization Versus Mechanical Restraint in an Avoid-Avoid Choice Test for Ewes

Temple Grandin1, Stanley E. Curtis1, Tina M. Widowski1 and John C. Thurmon2,3,4,

University of Illinois, Urbana 61801

Abstract

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.

Footnotes

1 Anim. Sci. Dept., 126 Anim. Sci. Lab., 1207 Gregory Dr., Urbana, IL 61801.

2 Vet. Clin. Med. Dept.

3 The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Knut Boe, Karen Charhut, Richard Cobb, Iain Curtis, Rhonda Feinmehl, Robert Hurst, James McFarlane, Balaam Mujuni, Mary Rowland, Andreas Siegerink and Sharon Zaccone.

4 Supported by a grant from Humane Information Services, Inc., St. Petersburg, FL.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1986 by the American Society of Animal Science.