Search

Ramps facilitate earlier access to complex environments and increase early life voluntary exercise, which may positively affect the cognitive development of chickens. This study focused on quantifying individual differences in ramp use and its impact on spatial cognition of laying hen pullets. Sixteen identical pens were housed with Lohmann Selected Leghorn (LSL) chicks of which eight chicks from each pen were colour marked from one day of age (DoA) to serve as focal birds. We quantified overall ramp use (walk/run, wing-assisted incline running, and jump/fly to and from ramps) by scan sampling recorded videos for 6, 10, 12, 20, 27, 41, and 55 DoA for all focal birds. From 56 to 95 DoA, long and short-term spatial memory of three focal birds per pen were assessed in a holeboard test in three consecutive phases: cued, uncued and reversal. Mixed model analysis showed that the spatial cognitive abilities of the birds were linked to differences in ramp use frequency averaged across all observation days. Birds with higher ramp use made fewer reference (Estimate ± Confidence Interval = 0.94 [0.88, 0.99], p = 0.08) and working memory errors (Est ± CI = 0.77 [0.59, 1.00], p = 0.06) in the cued phase than birds with lower ramp use. In contrast, birds with higher ramp use made more reference memory errors (Est ± CI = 1.10 [1.01, 1.20], p = 0.05) in the reversal phase. Birds with higher ramp use also made more reference memory errors compared to birds with lower ramp use as the phases changed from cued to uncued (p = 0.001). Our results indicate that there might be a relationship between early life ramp use and spatial cognition of laying hens., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Johny et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

The pros and cons of using anaesthesia when handling fish in connection with experiments are debated. A widely adopted practice is to wait thirty minutes after anaesthesia before behavioural observations are initiated, but information about immediate effects of a treatment is then lost. This is pertinent for responses to acute stressors, such as acid injection in the acetic acid pain test. However, omission of anaesthetics in order to obtain data on immediate responses will compromise the welfare of fish and contribute to experimental noise due to stress. We therefore tested the effect of tricaine methanesulfonate on the behaviour of zebrafish. We predicted that tricaine (MS 222) would decrease swimming velocity and that the control fish would show an increased level of anxiety- and stress-related behaviours compared to the tricaine group. Following acclimatization to the test tank, baseline behaviour was recorded before immersion in either tricaine (168 mg l(-1), treatment group, N = 8) or tank water (control group, N = 7). Latencies to lose equilibrium and to lose response to touch were registered. The fish was then returned to the test tank, and the latency to regain equilibrium was registered in anaesthetized fish. When equilibrium was regained, and at five, thirty and sixty minutes after the fish had been returned to the test tank, behaviour was recorded. The tricaine fish showed the following responses (mean ± sd): latency to lose equilibrium 22.6 s±3.9; latency to lose response to touch 101.9 s±26.8; latency to regain equilibrium 92.0 s±54.4. Contrary to our predictions, neither treatment caused a change in any of the behaviours registered. This indicates that tricaine has no effect on several commonly used behavioural parameters, and that it may be unnecessary to postpone behavioural observations to 30 min after anaesthesia.