Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T11:18:25.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behaviour and Preferences Among Deep Litters in Captive Capuchin Monkeys (Cebus Capucinus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

E Ludes-Fraulob  and
J R Anderson
E Ludes-Fraulob
Affiliation:
Centre de Primatologie, Université Louis Pasteur, 67207 Niederhausbergen, France
J R Anderson*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A captive group of white-faced capuchins, Cebus capucinus, was presented with four deep litters in simultaneous choice (or preference) tests. A floor covering of ground corn cob, woodchips, wood wool or peat was presented once in each quarter of the group ‘s indoor floor-area for 14 consecutive days, and the layout of the litters was rotated after each such period. The monkeys were observed on 10 days in each period to determine the occurrence of locomotion, foraging, play, and social contact on each of the litters. The ground corn cob was clearly the least attractive floor covering for the monkeys, while peat and wood wool proved to be the most attractive. Most instances of social contact occurred on the peat, due to the occurrence of communal peat-bathing, while wood wool afforded the most play. The provision of different litter types in different areas of the indoor enclosure is a simple means of promoting a greater range of natural activities in captive primates, and probably also in other animals.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourforaginglitterplaypreferencessocial contact
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , May 1999 , pp. 127 - 134
Copyright
© 1999 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anderson, J R, André, E and Wolf, P 1995 Successful mother- and group-rearing of a newborn capuchin monkey (Cebus capucinus) following emergency major surgery. Animal Welfare 4: 171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J R and Chamove, A S 1984 Allowing captive primates to forage. In: Standards in Laboratory Animal Management: Part 2 pp 253–256. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Boccia, M L 1989 Long-term effects of a natural foraging task on aggression and stereotypies in socially housed pigtail macaques. Laboratory Primate Newsletter 28(2): 18–19Google Scholar
Brent, L 1992 Woodchip bedding as enrichment for captive chimpanzees in an outdoor enclosure. Animal Welfare 161–170Google Scholar
Byrne, G D and Suomi, S J 1991 Effects of woodchips and buried food on behavior patterns and psychological well-being of captive rhesus monkeys. American Journal of Primatology 23: 141–151CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chamove, A S and Anderson, J R 1979 Woodchip litter in macaquc groups. Journal of the Institute of Animal Technicians 30: 69–74Google Scholar
Chamove, A S and Anderson, J R 1988 Impact of feeding practices on growth and behavior of stump-tailed macaques (Macaca arctoides) In: Fa J E and Southwick C H (eds) Ecology and Behavior of Food-Enhanced Primate Groups pp 231–246. Alan R Liss: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Chamove, A S and Anderson, J R 1989 Examining environmental enrichment. In: Segal, E F (ed) Housing, Care and Psychological Wellbeing of Captive and Laboratory Primates pp 183–202. Noyes Publications: Park Ridge, USAGoogle Scholar
Chamove, A S, Anderson, J R, Morgan-Jones, S C and Jones, S P 1982 Deep woodchip litter: Hygiene, feeding and behavioral enhancement in eight primates species. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 3: 308–318Google Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1977 Do hens suffer in battery cages? Environmental preferences and welfare. Animal Behaviour 25: 1034–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1983 The current status of preference tests in the assessment of animal welfare. In: Baxter, S H, Baxter, M R and McCormack, JAD (eds) Farm Animal Housing and Welfare pp 20–26. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal’s point of view: Motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1978 The interpretation of preference tests in animal behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1985 Selection of bedded and unbedded areas by pigs in relation to environmental temperature and behaviour Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Phillips, P A and Thompson, B K 1993 Environmental preference testing to assess the well-being of animals - an evolving paradigm. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 6(Supplement 2): 104–114Google Scholar
Hughes, B O and Black, A J 1973 The preference of domestic hens for different types of battery cage floor. British Poultry Science 14: 615–619Google Scholar
Ludes, E and Anderson, J R 1995 ‘Peat-bathing’ by captive white-faced capuchin monkeys (Cebus capucinus). Folia Primatologica 65: 38–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludes, E and Anderson, J R 1996 Comparison of the behaviour of captive white-faced capuchin monkeys (Cebus capucinus) in the presence of four kinds of deep litter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manser, C E, Morris, T H and Broom, D M 1994 Do rats prefer solid or gridded floors? In: Bunyan J (ed) Welfare and Science pp 462–463. Royal Society of Medicine Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1986 Measuring Behaviour. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Mench, J A 1994 Environmental enrichment and exploration. Lab Animal 23(2): 38–41Google Scholar
Mulder, J B 1975 Bedding preferences of pregnant laboratory-reared mice. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation 7: 21–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Natzke, R P, Bary, D R and Everett, R W 1982 Cow preference for free stall surface material. Journal of Dairy Science 65: 146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherick, J C and Duncan, I J H 1989 Behaviour of young domestic fowl directed towards different substrates. British Poultry Science 30: 229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, T B 1988 Behaviour, housing and welfare of non-human primates. In: Beynen A C and Solleveld H A (eds) New Developments in Biosciences: Their Implications for Laboratory Animal Science pp 231 - 237. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, V and Roberts, A 1997 Effective feeding enrichment for non-human primates: A brief review. Animal Welfare 6: 265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenblum, L A and Smiley, J 1984 Therapeutic effects of an imposed foraging task in disturbed monkeys. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 25: 485–497CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van de Weerd, H A, van Loo, P L P, van Zutphen, LFM, Koolhaas, J M and Baumans, V 1997 Preferences for nesting material as environmental enrichment for laboratory mice. Laboratory Animals 31: 133–143CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed