Subject: jobs From: Donald Broom Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:37:21 +0100 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Applications are invited for the following, available from 1st October 2007 subject to contract, in the Centre for Animal Welfare and Anthrozoology, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Cambridge University, UK.: a three year post-doc on the welfare of ducks and a one year fully funded M.Phil (E.U. students) on farrowing systems to improve sow and piglet welfare. Please send applications to Sue Tennant (st374@cam.ac.uk), secretary to Professor Don Broom sending a c.v. and the names of referees. -- Professor Donald M. Broom Colleen Macleod Professor of Animal Welfare Centre for Animal Welfare and Anthrozoology Department of Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge Madingley Road CAMBRIDGE CB3 0ES U.K. Telephone 0044 (0)1223 337697 Fax 0044 (0)1223 337610 and St Catharine's College Cambridge CB2 1RL U.K. 0044 (0)1223 338344 e-mail dmb16@cam.ac.uk Subject: MS student wanted From: "Pajor, Edmond A." Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:07:56 -0400 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Greetings all I have an opportunity for an MS student that is interested in studying gestating sow prefences for different housing systems If you or anyone you know might be interested please let me know Ed Pajor Associate Professor Animal Welfare and Behavior Department of Animal Sciences Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47906 pajor@purdue.edu 765-496-6665 Subject: re delivery of medication via sow From: Emily Patterson-Kane Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:13:56 -0500 To: applied-ethology network Dear all I have been told that some research was done on the topic of delivery medication to piglets via milk, by medicating the sow. This was specifically with the idea of providing anagesia prior to castration. Is anyone familiar with the work and able to provide a name or citation? Subject: Re: delivery of medication via sow From: joseph stookey Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:57:27 -0600 To: Emily Patterson-Kane CC: applied-ethology network , jane.alcorn@usask.ca, Alex Livingston , Joe Stookey , monica.seguin@usask.ca HI Emily, I did have a graduate student, Monic Seguin, working on this approach and we were collaborating with Dr. Alex Livingston (an anesthesiologist) and Dr. Jane Alcorn (a pharmacologist). We have funding from our National Science and Engineering Research Council to investigate this concept. We were interested in determining whether the sow could act as a vehicle to deliver analgesics to the piglets in preparation for castration and processing. We figured the delivery of analgesics in the more traditional manner (i.e. via injections, topical) had too many ergonomic problems (i.e. extra handling, time required to take effect, etc.) to ever be adopted by the industry. Delivery of pain meds via the sow seemed hopeful. One of the concerns of drugs being used on lactating cows and women is the fear the drugs will pass through the milk. That concern and fear has become our hope! As you know the nursing frequency in new born piglets is hourly and we hypothesized that it might be possible to deliver pain meds to the sow and transfer the drugs to the piglet via the milk - sort of a 'translactational analgesia'. In an ideal world we envisioned the producer would inject sows with the pain meds an hour or two before processing and they could be assured that the piglets would have nursed 1-2 times. If the drug passed through the milk at a high enough concentration it might be effective. There is some evidence to suggest that neonates may require considerably less doseage of drugs on a mg/ml basis to be effective - which is another potential plus. Our first attempt was to use the NSAID ketoprofen, though we suspect other NSAIDs or drugs may be more effective. There were two aspects of the work 1) measure the drug in the plasma of the sow, in her milk and in the piglets plasma and 2) determine if any observable benefit was experienced by the piglets. I am sorry to say that Monica has left her PhD program for personal reasons and the project has ground to a halt. Monica did make some progress before she left in developing an HPLC assay to detect the ketoprofen. However, to date we are still unsuccessful in developing 'tests' that could detect post-operative pain in 3 day old piglets (the age we castrate the piglets). In other words, we still have not been able to statistically separate via our behaviour measures, castrated from non-castrated piglets a few hours after the procedure. Either piglets of this age do not suffer any lingering pain from castration after a few hours or we do not have sensitive enough tests to detect the difference. Either way it is of little use to "treat" piglets with pain medications via the sow or otherwise if you can not determine their effectiveness at mitigating pain. I think the concept we were working on was very novel (though the National Pork Council never supported the work), and I think it still deserves investigation. If you or anyone else cares to take up this work, I would welcome, encourage and applaud your efforts. Or if you could get us more funding and another graduate student interested in the project - that would be great too! I will try to find an abstract from Monica's work and send it to you, but no formal publications from our work are currently available. I am not aware of any other researchers investigating this approach. Hope this helps and please feel free to contact me about this work if you have any additional questions. Cheers, Joe -- Joseph M. Stookey Professor of Applied Ethology Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences Western College of Veterinary Medicine University of Saskatchewan 52 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7N 5B4 Tel 306-966-7154 Fax 306-966-7159 Subject: Re: delivery of medication via sow From: Stanley Curtis Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:49:09 -0500 (CDT) To: joseph.stookey@usask.ca, Emily Patterson-Kane CC: applied-ethology network , jane.alcorn@usask.ca, Alex Livingston , monica.seguin@usask.ca All- The interesting question Emily raised and Joe even more interestingly responded to brought to mind the following article that appeared a few days ago in The Wall Street Journal- Joe might find a collaborator in Norway!- One thing is sure: The Norwegians seem to know how to fund research in a reasonable way!- And, by the way: Joe Stookey's comment about having been stymied in the research because of not having at hand a way to measure pain in the castrated neonatal piglet exemplifies precisely the reason I continue to espouse using the performance axiom in the assessment of animal state of being at this point in time- "The day might come . . . ."- But, until that day does come, . . . . - Stan Curtis Department of Animal Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign = = = These Little Pigs Get Special Care From Norwegians -- But Meat People Squeal, And a Lot of Other Folks Are Holding Their Noses By Joellen Perry and Mary Jacoby The Wall Street Journal Page A1, 6 August 2007 OSLO -- Farmers have been castrating piglets for thousands of years,which is good for the people who eat them but not so good for the piglets. "Sometimes they get depressed," says Bente Fredriksen, co-coordinator of a $13.8 million Norwegian research project looking into alternatives to castration. Studies by Europe's food-safety agency found castrated piglets suckle less and spend more time apart from their siblings. Responding to such concerns, and to animal-welfare groups' claims that the process causes piglets unnecessary pain, Norway's Parliament banned the castration of piglets starting in 2009. But that's causing a new constituency to squeal. To many people, the meat of uncastrated male pigs has an objectional taste known in the pig trade as "boar taint." And the ban could cost Norway's 3,000 pig farmers millions of dollars as they trash tons of boar meat many consumers won't touch, according to Animalia, a Norwegian meat-industry research group. The standoff has pushed this Scandinavian country to the forefront of a Europe-wide debate over piglet castration. In Holland, where the Party for the Animals won two parliamentary seats in 2006, major supermarkets in June said that in 2009 they'll stop selling meat from piglets castrated without anesthesia. Swiss lawmakers also recently made anesthesia mandatory beginning in 2009. British pig farmers have avoided castrating pigs for decades, voluntarily, in part because uncastrated males produce leaner meat; they say they slaughter pigs before they're old enough to develop the taint. U.S. pork farmers are watching warily. Animal-rights victories in Europe "tend to heighten the debate here," says Dave Warner of the National Pork Producers Council in Washington. America's 68,000 pork producers castrate about 50 million mostly unanesthetized piglets a year. Researchers at the European Food Safety Authority say archaeological evidence shows farmers were castrating pigs as early as 4000 BC. That may have been in part to make pigs more docile. "Entire males fight a lot, and they're constantly mounting each other," says Ms. Fredriksen, of the Norwegian Entire Male Research Program. As adults, whole males and females can't be kept in the same pens. But boar taint is the biggest problem. Not all pig breeds carry it to the same degree, but scientists say up to three quarters of people may be able to smell and taste it. The taint comes mainly from two compounds that mix in a male piglet's body. Androstenone, a steroid responsible for boar taint's tang of sweat and urine, builds up in porcine testicles once pigs hit puberty. Boar taint's other main ingredient is skatole, which accumulates in male pigs' digestive systems. Together, androstenone and skatole create a compound that leaves many people speechless. "It tastes like . . . pig. Like a lot of pig," says Eli Grindflek, a geneticist with the Norwegian pig-breeders association, Norsvin, noting that the volatile brew reacts to heat. Cold cuts are less likely to reek. Still, she says, "once you've had it, you'll swear never to serve pork again." That's what worries Norway's pig farmers. Harald Bohnsdalen, 41 years old, is a fourth-generation pig farmer in Leirsund, about 28 miles northeast of Oslo. He used to castrate up to 1,600 piglets a year on his own. But since 2002, abiding by Norwegian law, he has brought in veterinarians to do the cutting, and to administer local anesthesia beforehand. The process costs farmers about $1.70 per piglet. One recent Monday morning, Mr. Bohnsdalen held a wriggling eight-day-old piglet upside down. Wearing heavy sound mufflers over his ears, veterinarian Hallgeir Flo injected an anesthetic and waited a few minutes for it to take. Then he extracted two little orbs. The cuts took about 15 seconds. "We don't do it for fun," says Mr. Bohnsdalen, a six-time Norwegian plowing champion. "Castration costs money and it's bad for the pigs." He's resigned to the anesthesia law but thinks the upcoming ban on castration is premature. Since 1997, the European Union has officially recognized animals as sentient beings able to feel pain and emotion. Norway isn't part of the EU, but it boasts an even more expansive animal-rights code. Norwegian pigpens, for example, must have largely solid floors strewn with something soft, like straw or wood chips, so pigs can lie down comfortably. In the U.S., pigpen floors are mostly hard and grated. "It's important to me how the pigs are doing," said 27-year-old Elin Braaten, after shopping at a downtown Oslo supermarket. She said she hadn't heard about the coming ban on piglet-castration. But she likes the sound of it. If she ends up with any foul-tasting pork, she says: "I'll just start buying more lamb." Norway has mounted a full-on assault on boar taint in advance of the 2009 ban. Geneticists are studying gene patterns to breed a taint-free boar. Norwegians are also working in cooperation with British and Danish researchers to separate the X and Y chromosomes in pigs' semen. That practice, already common in cattle breeding, would make it possible to breed fewer male pigs. Still, few here believe a boar-taint fix will be ready in time for 2009. Norway's Ministry of Agriculture and Food has told the Parliament that the problem is unlikely to be solved in time, prompting a review by Parliament in October. "It's too much for a small country like Norway to solve," says Guri Tveito, director general of the Ministry's Department of Food Policy. "We need international research on a broad level." Norwegian animal-welfare groups pushing to keep the 2009 castration ban in place say farmers should consider options including "immuno-castration," by vaccine. Since 2004, U.S. pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. has marketed Improvac, a vaccine that suppresses piglet puberty, as a way to sidestep the castration debate while eliminating boar taint. Farmers in Australia, Brazil, Mexico, and some other countries already vaccinate. Switzerland approved Improvac in January. Pfizer is applying for entry to the U.S. and EU markets. At up to $5 a pig, Improvac is more expensive than both physical castration and Norway's anesthesia mandate. But farmers say they save on feed costs and produce leaner pork, because the vaccine-induced castration lasts only for the few weeks before a pig is slaughtered. Still, Norwegian researchers and pig farmers aren't convinced. "It doesn't fit into our concept" of a wholesome, clean pig, says Kristin Ianssen, chairman of the Norsvin board. Norwegian food scientist Kathrine Lunde wrote her master's thesis on preparing the meat of uncastrated male pigs. She found that the nasty flavor was best disguised by marinades that combined oregano and smoke flavors. The 28-year-old Ms. Lunde's culinary advice may come in handy for Norway's cooks if the ban actually goes into effect. = = = ---- Original message ---- > >Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:57:27 -0600 > >From: joseph stookey > >Subject: Re: delivery of medication via sow > >To: Emily Patterson-Kane > >Cc: applied-ethology network , jane.alcorn@usask.ca, Alex Livingston , Joe Stookey , monica.seguin@usask.ca > > > >HI Emily, > > > > I did have a graduate student, Monic Seguin, working on this > >approach and we were collaborating with Dr. Alex Livingston (an > >anesthesiologist) and Dr. Jane Alcorn (a pharmacologist). We have > >funding from our National Science and Engineering Research Council to > >investigate this concept. We were interested in determining whether the > >sow could act as a vehicle to deliver analgesics to the piglets in > >preparation for castration and processing. We figured the delivery of > >analgesics in the more traditional manner (i.e. via injections, topical) > >had too many ergonomic problems (i.e. extra handling, time required to > >take effect, etc.) to ever be adopted by the industry. Delivery of pain > >meds via the sow seemed hopeful. One of the concerns of drugs being > >used on lactating cows and women is the fear the drugs will pass through > >the milk. That concern and fear has become our hope! As you know the > >nursing frequency in new born piglets is hourly and we hypothesized that > >it might be possible to deliver pain meds to the sow and transfer the > >drugs to the piglet via the milk - sort of a 'translactational > >analgesia'. In an ideal world we envisioned the producer would inject > >sows with the pain meds an hour or two before processing and they could > >be assured that the piglets would have nursed 1-2 times. If the drug > >passed through the milk at a high enough concentration it might be > >effective. There is some evidence to suggest that neonates may require > >considerably less doseage of drugs on a mg/ml basis to be effective - > >which is another potential plus. > > Our first attempt was to use the NSAID ketoprofen, though we suspect > >other NSAIDs or drugs may be more effective. There were two aspects of > >the work 1) measure the drug in the plasma of the sow, in her milk and > >in the piglets plasma and 2) determine if any observable benefit was > >experienced by the piglets. > > I am sorry to say that Monica has left her PhD program for personal > >reasons and the project has ground to a halt. Monica did make some > >progress before she left in developing an HPLC assay to detect the > >ketoprofen. However, to date we are still unsuccessful in developing > >'tests' that could detect post-operative pain in 3 day old piglets (the > >age we castrate the piglets). In other words, we still have not been > >able to statistically separate via our behaviour measures, castrated >from non-castrated piglets a few hours after the procedure. Either > >piglets of this age do not suffer any lingering pain from castration > >after a few hours or we do not have sensitive enough tests to detect the > >difference. Either way it is of little use to "treat" piglets with pain > >medications via the sow or otherwise if you can not determine their > >effectiveness at mitigating pain. > > I think the concept we were working on was very novel (though the > >National Pork Council never supported the work), and I think it still > >deserves investigation. If you or anyone else cares to take up this > >work, I would welcome, encourage and applaud your efforts. Or if you > >could get us more funding and another graduate student interested in the > >project - that would be great too! > > I will try to find an abstract from Monica's work and send it to > >you, but no formal publications from our work are currently available. > >I am not aware of any other researchers investigating this approach. > > > >Hope this helps and please feel free to contact me about this work if > >you have any additional questions. > > > >Cheers, > > > >Joe > > > >-- > >Joseph M. Stookey > >Professor of Applied Ethology > >Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences > >Western College of Veterinary Medicine > >University of Saskatchewan > >52 Campus Drive > >Saskatoon, Saskatchewan > >Canada S7N 5B4 > > > >Tel 306-966-7154 > >Fax 306-966-7159 > > Subject: Re: delivery of pain medication via sow From: joseph stookey Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:28:26 -0600 To: securtis@uiuc.edu, applied-ethology network CC: Emily Patterson-Kane , jane.alcorn@usask.ca, Alex Livingston , monica.seguin@usask.ca, "Roybal, Joe" , "Ian J.H. Duncan" , "Haley, Derek" , Dan Weary , danielmurphy1@msn.com, Tina Widowski , Harold Gonyou HI Everyone, Stan Curstis wrote: And, by the way: Joe Stookey's comment about having been stymied in the research because of not having at hand a way to measure pain in the castrated neonatal piglet exemplifies precisely the reason I continue to espouse using the performance axiom in the assessment of animal state of being at this point in time- "The day might come . . . ."- But, until that day does come, . . . . - Stan, I think you have to appreciate that we are looking for evidence that pain "lingers" after castration. We are not worried about looking for evidence that castration is painful. We already know it is and have good scientific evidence to make that claim. For example, based on work by Dan Weary's group where they used piglets' vocalizations at the time of castration, they showed that the crushing of the spermatic chord is more painful then the scrotal incision based on the increase in frequency (or energy) of the squeal. Vocalizations we believe are "honest signals", in that animals can not "lie" about what they feel. There is plenty of material written about "honest signaling" in the biological literature in case you are unfamiliar with the term. So most scientists are convinced by the research that castration in piglets, calves, etc. is painful when done without analgesic, since the use of analgesics bring the "measures" back to the sham control baseline (the gold standard in pain research). However, our work using NSAIDs is an attempt to see if NSAIDs (non-steriodal anti-imflamatory drugs), which are known for diminishing and controlling chronic pain, may have benefit. IF there is evidence of lingering pain, then an NSAID might help. We do not believe the NSAIDs would have much effect at blocking the pain felt immediately at the time of castration. It would be comparable to trying to prep a patient for surgery giving them only aspirin. To block the acute pain we would likely need analgesics - which we are not certain would be good candidates for transfer and effectiveness through the sow's milk (because we might knock the sow out by injecting her), but NSAIDs might go through the milk and have some effect at blocking chronic pain - if some chronic or lingering pain exists in piglets following castration. The other interesting point is that if you castrate piglets at 5 days or older there is evidence that the piglets show signs of post castration pain. Our problem is that we are working with piglets that are being castrated at 3 days (the current industry standard) and these very young piglets may or may not have lingering pain. The point is that at the present time we can not detect any lingering pain with the measurements we are using. That is not positive proof 3 d old piglets do not feel some lingering pain - it is only proof we can not detect it at their age with our techniques. As a further side note we have submitted a paper for publication on the benefits of an NSAID used in beef calves following castration. One measurement we recorded - stride length of the calves at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hrs after castration - was particularly useful in showing that the NSAID treated calves displayed fewer signs of lingering pain up to 12 hours following castration compared to the control group castrated without drugs. A few other measurements also supported that conclusion. We did not attempt to measure performance of these calves post castration, since all groups were castrated. Plus, we know calves are not likely to give up nursing (which is directly related to weight gain) when nursing is available, simply because they are feeling pain. So measuring their performance, at that age seemed mute to the question at hand. Stan, while the Performance Axiom may have great relevance in studies interested in determining spacing density, crowding, etc. I am not confident it has any place in measuring the impact of painful procedures on a short term basis. There is evidence that performance suffers following castration or dehorning in older beef cattle (greater than 6 months of age), but I am not convinced we should assume these procedures do not cause suffering in younger animals simply because we can not detect a huge dip in performance. It just means that older animals are more at risk of having long term effects following these procedures; just as diseases and injuries normally have more profound effects on older people and animals. The Performance Axiom has its place in helping us measure the "animal's state of being" in some situations, but in no way is performance the be all and end all of animal welfare related indicators. In many cases performance is just too crude a measure, especially in pain related research. It is a bit like trying to do toxicological work with a bathroom scale - I suppose a bathroom scale might work in an oil spill, but it is useless in an outbreak of botulism. So Stan, I believe you when you argue that the Performance Axiom has merit, but I disagree with you in believing the entire Animal Welfare Debate can be settled or answered using it. In fact, one of reasons the Animal Welfare Debate has become so heated between the livestock industry, producer groups and animal welfare advocates is because our livestock systems and decisions have relied too much on performance and not enough on other indicators. Performance is not the only measure we have to determine whether an animal is suffering. Even the nutritionists will tell you that their work relies on more than a weigh scale to investigate the intricacies of their discipline, so I am not convinced that scientists working on animal welfare related issues need to be regulated to just performance measurements - no other scientific discipline is so dependent upon a single indicator. One of the things I really hate about the "Performance Axiom" debate that we have had (and are having) is that the "debate" we have as scientists gets used against us by the livestock industry and producer groups as evidence to dismiss the entire debate since "even animal scientists can not agree on how to measure animal welfare or the state of an animal's well being." That get misinterpreted to mean that "animal welfare" is just a big debate and nothing of importance and it is safe to continue on as in the past until the scientists quit arguing. It mirrors the debate on global warming, when scientists argue about the percentage of man's contribution to global warming; some politicians take that to mean global warming does not exist or does not need to be addressed. Stan, I think your continuous claim that the state of an animal's well being can not be measured unless we follow what you have laid down in the Performance Axiom and your dismissal of other measurements, has the same poisonous effect on producers or politicians who are unwilling to change. As you stated " "The day might come . . . ."- But, until that day does come, . . . . - While you may think that statement holds true until we have better measurements (which I and many scientists already think we do have) - a producer or politician may think the statement infers that there is no need to change - just yet! The point that gets missed is that animal welfare is IMPORTANT. And it is important to our animals and to society as a whole. Arguments about which are the most important or most valid measurements and whether or not we can really measure an animal's feelings or state of mind are not the same as an argument on whether animal welfare is important and whether it needs our attention. Animal welfare is important and it needs our attention as scientists, ethicists, veterinarians, producers, politicians and consumers. And no one group, one measurement or one axiom has the corner market on solving these contentious issues. I have heard many industry and producer groups make the claim that the consumer is always right when referring to meat packaging, serving size, fat content, juiciness, tenderness, flavor, off flavors, cooking time, price, etc., etc., but when it comes to animal welfare issues, producers think consumers do not know anything! How is it that consumers can be right about everything, except animal welfare? You wouldn't find a zoo or any other successful business from coal mining and forestry to toy making and cosmetics that dismisses consumer sentiments as easily as our livestock industries have ignored consumer attitudes towards animal welfare. It is no wonder why we have voter initiatives afoot at the state levels to demand changes to our livestock rearing systems. It is the obvious outcome when concerns fall on deaf ears. At the same time the livestock industries proudly boast that we are feeding the world and providing cheap food, as if we are the poster child for altruism and deserve no criticism for our actions. The economist John Adams in 1776 wrote, The Wealth of Nations and in it he said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest". No one will accept the claim that we treat our animals as we do because we have to do it that way in order to feed the world. I am not trying to trash all livestock producers, I am a cattle producer myself, but the idea that as livestock producers we can ignore contentious animal welfare issues and adhere to traditional practices that offend the consumer is absurd. I am sorry I must disagree with you Stan, but the idea that we can also rely solely on the "traditional scientific measurement" such as performance as the best indicator of an animal's well being, I believe, is equally flawed. I hope you can see my point of view. Cheers, Joe -- Joseph M. Stookey Professor of Applied Ethology Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences Western College of Veterinary Medicine University of Saskatchewan 52 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7N 5B4 Tel 306-966-7154 Fax 306-966-7159 Subject: Re: delivery of pain medication via sow From: Stanley Curtis Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:11:17 -0500 (CDT) To: joseph.stookey@usask.ca, applied-ethology network CC: Emily Patterson-Kane , jane.alcorn@usask.ca, Alex Livingston , monica.seguin@usask.ca, "Roybal, Joe" , "Ian J.H. Duncan" , "Haley, Derek" , Dan Weary , danielmurphy1@msn.com, Tina Widowski , Harold Gonyou Joe and others- I have read and appreciate your commentary on the performance axiom- I do want to respond- Starting with the very last sentence in your post, you wrote: "I hope you can see my point of view." I assure you that, although I disagree with much of it, I do understand most of your exposition of your point of view- I do believe that some of what you think about the topic is based on misinterpretations of what heretofore I have said and written on the topic- I hope that what follows will contribute to clarifying my thinking- You also wrote: "Arguments about which are the most important or most valid measurements and whether or not we can really measure an animal's feelings or state of mind are not the same as an argument on whether animal welfare is important and whether it needs our attention...." I am not sure I understand the meaning of this sentence- If it is meant to imply that I think farm-animal welfare is unimportant and does not need our attention, I simply deny such implication- I first became interested in farm-animal welfare upon reading Animal Machines while a graduate student in the mid-1960s, and have followed it in the USA as well as abroad ever since- I have been studying and teaching and conducting research on what I consider to be farm-animal welfare (although others may well disagree) since the late-1960s- I read the 1969 edition of Hafez’s Behaviour of Domestic Animals virtually in its entirety, and several chapters many times- I was greatly moved by reading Ian Duncan’s “Frustration in the Fowl” when it first came out- I finished reading Peter Singer’s book Animal Liberation the same day I picked it up- Those were the early days- Farm-animal welfare has been on my mind continuously for my whole career as an animal scientist- And I will not stand by and let others relegate me to playing second fiddle to more than a handful people in terms of the attention and importance I have accorded the welfare of the animals we keep and the time and effort and thinking I have devoted to those creatures- For many years in the USA, mine was a pretty lonely voice- But people kept asking me to come and talk – on over 800 occasions in 20 years, to be roughly exact- Everything I have done – including development of the performance axiom – has been done in support of a high state of being in those animals- You also wrote: "How is it that consumers can be right about everything, except animal welfare? ...." A consumer knows whether she finds a bite of steak to be tender, juicy, and tasty and to have good mouthfeel- But no consumer knows how much an animal is suffering- And, incidentally, neither does any scientist know that with any degree of certainty at this time- You also wrote: "[B]ut the idea that as livestock producers we can ignore contentious animal welfare issues and adhere to traditional practices that offend the consumer is absurd." I agree and have never suggested we can or ought to do so- But when animal agriculture accedes to calls from a part of the public that believes that a farm animal should never suffer and that is largely naďve about the whys and wherefores of animal-husbandry practices, it often is doing so in recognition of economic, political, and sociological realities, not scientific evidence- * Several weeks ago, I had the good fortune of meeting Sara Shields, who earned her doctorate in Joy Mench’s lab at UCDavis, at a meeting in Des Moines- A few days after that (on 11 June 2007), I received an e-note from Sara, in which she wrote: "As promised, I am e-mailing to ask you more about your 'performance axiom'. After re-reading the posts to the Applied Ethology list, I still have a few questions.... I have Sara’s permission to share her questions along with my replies with the applied-ethology network; that I have been planning to do sometime soon- Sara then went on to pose another question, however, that is germane to this current exchange of ideas and to which I want to respond here and now: "Also, could it be that you are talking about apples, while others on the ethology list are talking about oranges? Are you proposing a set of measurements that producers could use, on the farm, while the other ethologists on the list are talking about measurements available to scientists, to be used in a thorough investigation of animal welfare in an experimental setting, where laboratory analysis of stress hormones and computer-assisted behavioral data collection are all potentially available?" What Sara insinuated with her questions is right on- I have been tussling for quite some time now with ways and means of assessing an animal’s state of being while it is residing on a farm or ranch- In practice, the assessment and auditing processes will occur during short-term visits of an assessor or auditor- It is snapshot of what is going on at the unit- AAALAC International accreditation site visitors have known for a long time that it is important to not only look in on animals where they reside, but also to examine records of surgeries, disease treatments, and – yes – performance- Soon, presumably, over much of the world, we shall be assessing and auditing the welfare of animals on farms and ranches, among other places- And that is a good thing- When that happens, however, the assessors and auditors will need to have a standardized approach to doing their jobs- And that is where I now see those of us interested in making progress on this front having our work cut out for us- Joe, you also wrote: "One of the things I really hate about the 'Performance Axiom' debate that we have had (and are having) is that the "debate" we have as scientists gets used against us by the livestock industry and producer groups as evidence to dismiss the entire debate since 'even animal scientists can not agree on how to measure animal welfare or the state of an animal's well being.'" Hate it, we both do- But where we are right now is in the midst of unsettled science- Debate in science is a good thing- In fact, it is identified as a specific step in the scientific method- Before we settle this important matter, scientists with various points of view and disciplinary persuasions will simply have to sit around the same table – probably for quite some time – and hash out their differences- (More on this below-) And you also wrote: "I believe you when you argue that the Performance Axiom has merit, but I disagree with you in believing the entire Animal Welfare Debate can be settled or answered using it. In fact, one of reasons the Animal Welfare Debate has become so heated between the livestock industry, producer groups and animal welfare advocates is because our livestock systems and decisions have relied too much on performance and not enough on other indicators." Let’s refresh our memories as to how the performance axiom reads- * The Performance Axiom For a constitutionally fit animal of any kind, in the continuing absence of an adequate scientifically informed understanding of its conscious feelings, the best single set of measurable — hence, manageable — indicators of that animal’s state of being will be its rates of productive and reproductive performance relative to its predicted potential to perform. Feed-conversion efficiency, inter- individual variation in performance, body condition index, and rates of culling, morbidity, and mortality also will provide valuable information on animal state of being. Although the performance axiom is silent as to what other indicators of animal state of being there are, use of the term “best single set ... of indicators” should imply that there are other indicators, as well, because “best” is the superlative adjective in the “good – better – best” progression- The performance axiom was developed to bring animal performance back onto the table when assessing an animal’s state of being- For some reason, as I have discussed in detail elsewhere, performance has virtually been abandoned in terms of being considered a useful indicator of animal state of being- One well-known applied ethologist even said, in a major address at a recent meeting of the ISAE: “Animal welfare is characterized by the absence of behavior problems”- I simply do not think animal welfare can be characterized that simply, and I gather from other things in your subject post, Joe, that you don’t either- In any case, that sort of pronoucnement does little, I'm afraid, to indicatea willingness of some people to budge much from a narrow consideration of what constitutes animal welfare, whether it can be measured and managed or not- You also wrote: "The Performance Axiom has its place in helping us measure the 'animal's state of being' in some situations, but in no way is performance the be all and end all of animal welfare related indicators." I have never said that performance should be taken as the be-all and end-all of animal-welfare-related indicators- You also wrote: "In many cases performance is just too crude a measure, especially in pain related research…. While the Performance Axiom may have great relevance in studies interested in determining spacing density, crowding, etc. I am not confident it has any place in measuring the impact of painful procedures on a short term basis. I agree- You also wrote: "We are not worried about looking for evidence that castration is painful. We already know it is and have good scientific evidence to make that claim." There is no reason to doubt that knife castration without anesthesia or analgesia is painful to a male pig of any age- I’m not sure what scientific evidence you are referring to, but in any case the problem with pain in animals in terms of animal welfare – a line-drawing exercise as opposed to a trump/no-trump situation, after all – is that, at this time, we do not know how much any pig actually suffers either during or after the castration procedure- We need to find out as much as we can about that before setting voluntary guidelines or enforced regulations- You also wrote: "Vocalizations we believe are "honest signals", in that animals can not "lie" about what they feel." Believe it or not, I am, and for some time have been, familiar with the concept of "honest signals"- Pigs have no reason that comes to mind to want to “lie” about how they feel- But I do know that, conventional knife castration at the hands of a skilled surgeon results in considerable variation among piglets in the perceived intensity of the squeal- Indeed, some barely squeal at all- I agree that a stronger squeal – however that might be measured – generally and probably indicates that more pain is being experienced by that piglet- But just how much more pain? Again: How much is the animal suffering?- And, even if we knew the answer to that question, where should we draw the line in terms of trade-offs between the pain associated with “standard agricultural practices” and the usefulness of painful procedure in the production of food for human sustenance?- Much as it might surprise those who apparently have chosen to brush-off the performance axiom without giving it much thought – one applied ethologist even claimed not to have thought much about such a laughable theory – there are behavior patterns that I would consider to be ample indication that an animal was experiencing only fairness or wellness- Ones that come quickly to mind are the thermoregulatory postural adjustments pigs – either in groups or singly – make in wamr/hot or cool/cold microenvironments, respectively- The relationships between lying posture and productive performance over a range of effective environmental temperatures have been scientifically documented- And there are others, and I am in the process of preparing a monograph discussing them- You also wrote: "That is not positive proof 3 d old piglets do not feel some lingering pain - it is only proof we can not detect it at their age with our techniques." If I may say so, this sentence is an example of the kind of uncareful writing that betrays a prejudice that is unscientific- The second phrase presumes that 3-d-old piglets do have lingering pain from conventional knife castration but, alas, our current techniques are not sensitive enough to detect ... but if only they were sensitive enough, we jolly well could document that indeed they do have lingering pain- Might not the reason it hasn’t been detected be that it doesn’t exist?- You also wrote: "I think your continuous claim that the state of an animal's well being can not be measured unless we follow what you have laid down in the Performance Axiom and your dismissal of other measurements, has the same poisonous effect on producers or politicians who are unwilling to change." Again, most certainly, I have never – let alone have I continuously – claimed that the state of an animal’s being cannot be measured by indicators other than performance ones- You also wrote: "As you stated: ' ‘The day might come….’- But, until that day does come, ….'- …. While you may think that statement holds true until we have better measurements (which I and many scientists already think we do have) - a producer or politician may think the statement infers that there is no need to change - just yet!" If they were to make such an inference, it would be a grave mistake- I trust that the producers in the dairy, livestock, and poultry industries are willing to change in response to cultural trends, but I expect they will not do so voluntarily on the bases of intuitions and opinions- Rather, they are accustomed to following settled science, and most would require more evidence as to the relationship of observed behavior patterns and the actual amount of suffering the animals experience before drastically changing their practices- Finally, you also wrote: "The idea that we can also rely solely on the 'traditional scientific measurement' such as performance as the best indicator of an animal's well being, I believe, is equally flawed." At this point in time, what do you propose as being better than performance indicators? Coda I want to add two things before signing off- First, nothing I have said or written in connection with this matter over the months and years should be misconstrued as meaning that I do not have the utmost respect for applied ethologists and other behavioral scientists and the work they do- As students and others who have worked with me for decades can attest, I am greatly intrigued by the work of these people- Also, nothing should be misconstrued as meaning that I am not four-square behind increased funding for the scientific study of the behavior and coignition of farm animals- Second, I think there continues to be a critical need for more discussion of the important matter as to how we should go about assessing and auditing animal state of being on farms and ranches in ways that will be sure to correctly measure an animal's state of being and that, therefore, will give all stakeholders to the issue confidence that the success of various attempts at improving practical animal environments can be accurately and practically measured- Stan Curtis Department of Animal Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ---- Original message ---- > >Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:28:26 -0600 > >From: joseph stookey > >Subject: Re: delivery of pain medication via sow > >To: securtis@uiuc.edu, applied-ethology network > >Cc: Emily Patterson-Kane , jane.alcorn@usask.ca, Alex Livingston , monica.seguin@usask.ca, "Roybal, Joe" , "Ian J.H. Duncan" , "Haley, Derek" , Dan Weary , danielmurphy1@msn.com, Tina Widowski , Harold Gonyou > > > >HI Everyone, > > > >Stan Curstis wrote: > > > >And, by the way: Joe Stookey's comment about having been stymied in the research because of not having at hand a way to measure pain in the castrated neonatal piglet exemplifies precisely the reason I continue to espouse using the performance axiom in the assessment of animal state of being at this point in time- "The day might come . . . ."- But, until that day does come, . . . . - > > > > > >Stan, I think you have to appreciate that we are looking for evidence that pain "lingers" after castration. We are not worried about looking for evidence that castration is painful. We already know it is and have good scientific evidence to make that claim. For example, based on work by Dan Weary's group where they used piglets' vocalizations at the time of castration, they showed that the crushing of the spermatic chord is more painful then the scrotal incision based on the increase in frequency (or energy) of the squeal. Vocalizations we believe are "honest signals", in that animals can not "lie" about what they feel. There is plenty of material written about "honest signaling" in the biological literature in case you are unfamiliar with the term. So most scientists are convinced by the research that castration in piglets, calves, etc. is painful when done without analgesic, since the use of analgesics bring the "measures" back to the sham control baseline (the gold standard in pain research). However, our work using NSAIDs is an attempt to see if NSAIDs (non-steriodal anti-imflamatory drugs), which are known for diminishing and controlling chronic pain, may have benefit. IF there is evidence of lingering pain, then an NSAID might help. We do not believe the NSAIDs would have much effect at blocking the pain felt immediately at the time of castration. It would be comparable to trying to prep a patient for surgery giving them only aspirin. To block the acute pain we would likely need analgesics - which we are not certain would be good candidates for transfer and effectiveness through the sow's milk (because we might knock the sow out by injecting her), but NSAIDs might go through the milk and have some effect at blocking chronic pain - if some chronic or lingering pain exists in piglets following castration. The other interesting point is that if you castrate piglets at 5 days or older there is evidence that the piglets show signs of post castration pain. Our problem is that we are working with piglets that are being castrated at 3 days (the current industry standard) and these very young piglets may or may not have lingering pain. The point is that at the present time we can not detect any lingering pain with the measurements we are using. That is not positive proof 3 d old piglets do not feel some lingering pain - it is only proof we can not detect it at their age with our techniques. > > > >As a further side note we have submitted a paper for publication on the benefits of an NSAID used in beef calves following castration. One measurement we recorded - stride length of the calves at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hrs after castration - was particularly useful in showing that the NSAID treated calves displayed fewer signs of lingering pain up to 12 hours following castration compared to the control group castrated without drugs. A few other measurements also supported that conclusion. We did not attempt to measure performance of these calves post castration, since all groups were castrated. Plus, we know calves are not likely to give up nursing (which is directly related to weight gain) when nursing is available, simply because they are feeling pain. So measuring their performance, at that age seemed mute to the question at hand. > > > >Stan, while the Performance Axiom may have great relevance in studies interested in determining spacing density, crowding, etc. I am not confident it has any place in measuring the impact of painful procedures on a short term basis. There is evidence that performance suffers following castration or dehorning in older beef cattle (greater than 6 months of age), but I am not convinced we should assume these procedures do not cause suffering in younger animals simply because we can not detect a huge dip in performance. It just means that older animals are more at risk of having long term effects following these procedures; just as diseases and injuries normally have more profound effects on older people and animals. The Performance Axiom has its place in helping us measure the "animal's state of being" in some situations, but in no way is performance the be all and end all of animal welfare related indicators. In many cases performance is just too crude a measure, especially in pain related research. It is a bit like trying to do toxicological work with a bathroom scale - I suppose a bathroom scale might work in an oil spill, but it is useless in an outbreak of botulism. > > > >So Stan, I believe you when you argue that the Performance Axiom has > >merit, but I disagree with you in believing the entire Animal Welfare > >Debate can be settled or answered using it. In fact, one of reasons the > >Animal Welfare Debate has become so heated between the livestock > >industry, producer groups and animal welfare advocates is because our > >livestock systems and decisions have relied too much on performance and > >not enough on other indicators. Performance is not the only measure we > >have to determine whether an animal is suffering. Even the > >nutritionists will tell you that their work relies on more than a weigh > >scale to investigate the intricacies of their discipline, so I am not > >convinced that scientists working on animal welfare related issues need > >to be regulated to just performance measurements - no other scientific > >discipline is so dependent upon a single indicator. > > > >One of the things I really hate about the "Performance Axiom" debate > >that we have had (and are having) is that the "debate" we have as > >scientists gets used against us by the livestock industry and producer > >groups as evidence to dismiss the entire debate since "even animal > >scientists can not agree on how to measure animal welfare or the state > >of an animal's well being." That get misinterpreted to mean that > >"animal welfare" is just a big debate and nothing of importance and it > >is safe to continue on as in the past until the scientists quit > >arguing. It mirrors the debate on global warming, when scientists argue > >about the percentage of man's contribution to global warming; some > >politicians take that to mean global warming does not exist or does not > >need to be addressed. Stan, I think your continuous claim that the state > >of an animal's well being can not be measured unless we follow what you > >have laid down in the Performance Axiom and your dismissal of other > >measurements, has the same poisonous effect on producers or politicians > >who are unwilling to change. > > > >As you stated " > > > >"The day might come . . . ."- But, until that day does come, . . . . - > > > >While you may think that statement holds true until we have better measurements (which I and many scientists already think we do have) - a producer or politician may think the statement infers that there is no need to change - just yet! > > > >The point that gets missed is that animal welfare is IMPORTANT. And it > >is important to our animals and to society as a whole. Arguments about > >which are the most important or most valid measurements and whether or > >not we can really measure an animal's feelings or state of mind are not > >the same as an argument on whether animal welfare is important and > >whether it needs our attention. Animal welfare is important and it > >needs our attention as scientists, ethicists, veterinarians, producers, > >politicians and consumers. And no one group, one measurement or one > >axiom has the corner market on solving these contentious issues. > > > >I have heard many industry and producer groups make the claim that the > >consumer is always right when referring to meat packaging, serving size, > >fat content, juiciness, tenderness, flavor, off flavors, cooking time, > >price, etc., etc., but when it comes to animal welfare issues, producers > >think consumers do not know anything! How is it that consumers can be > >right about everything, except animal welfare? You wouldn't find a zoo > >or any other successful business from coal mining and forestry to toy > >making and cosmetics that dismisses consumer sentiments as easily as our > >livestock industries have ignored consumer attitudes towards animal > >welfare. It is no wonder why we have voter initiatives afoot at the > >state levels to demand changes to our livestock rearing systems. It is > >the obvious outcome when concerns fall on deaf ears. At the same time > >the livestock industries proudly boast that we are feeding the world and > >providing cheap food, as if we are the poster child for altruism and > >deserve no criticism for our actions. > > > >The economist John Adams in 1776 wrote, The Wealth of Nations and in it > >he said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or > >the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own > >interest". No one will accept the claim that we treat our animals as we > >do because we have to do it that way in order to feed the world. I am > >not trying to trash all livestock producers, I am a cattle producer > >myself, but the idea that as livestock producers we can ignore > >contentious animal welfare issues and adhere to traditional practices > >that offend the consumer is absurd. I am sorry I must disagree with you > >Stan, but the idea that we can also rely solely on the "traditional > >scientific measurement" such as performance as the best indicator of an > >animal's well being, I believe, is equally flawed. I hope you can see > >my point of view. > > > > > >Cheers, > > > >Joe > > > > > >-- > >Joseph M. Stookey > >Professor of Applied Ethology > >Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences > >Western College of Veterinary Medicine > >University of Saskatchewan > >52 Campus Drive > >Saskatoon, Saskatchewan > >Canada S7N 5B4 > > > >Tel 306-966-7154 > >Fax 306-966-7159 > > > > Subject: Re: delivery of pain medication via sow From: joseph stookey Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:17:20 -0600 To: securtis@uiuc.edu CC: "Haley, Derek" , Harold Gonyou , applied-ethology network , Dan Weary , "Ian J.H. Duncan" , joseph.stookey@usask.ca, Alex Livingston , jane.alcorn@usask.ca, monica.seguin@usask.ca, danielmurphy1@msn.com, "Roybal, Joe" , Emily Patterson-Kane , Tina Widowski , applied-ethology network Dear Stan, you wrote: If it is meant to imply that I think farm-animal welfare is unimportant and does not need our attention, I simply deny such implication- Stan, I know you think animal welfare is important. I know you have been interested and contributed to the field for the bulk of your career. My comment was aimed at individuals who are willing to dismiss the importance of animal welfare, based on the fact that scientists, like you and I, can not agree on how best to measure it or how best to act on our results. What I was trying to say is that our debate is not about whether animal welfare is important, but whether we use and rely on the same scientific measurements to draw our conclusions. Outsiders who reads our arguments may miss our critical points and simply believe that if the scientists can not agree then there is little for them to do, but to continue on with their traditional approach. > You also wrote: > A consumer knows whether she finds a bite of steak to be tender, juicy, and tasty and to have good mouthfeel- But no consumer knows how much an animal is suffering- And, incidentally, neither does any scientist know that with any degree of certainty at this time-" I agree that we can never know for certain HOW much an animal is suffering, but we can know whether we have alternatives that cause LESS suffering. As an example, most scientists working on painful procedures have compared various techniques to valid controls to determine the "differences" that may exist between the available options. For example, Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein's work on branding was aimed at determining the differences in the animals' response between hot-iron, freeze branding and a control sham brand. By measuring the force animals exert against the head gate during branding, using vocal analysis, and by measuring the maximum distance moved and the acceleration of the head during the branding process she showed conclusively that hot-iron branding caused a much more pronounced escape response, much more struggle and higher energy in their vocalizations then did freeze branding and sham branding. Our interpretation was that hot-iron branding is more painful. As you point out we still do not know how much the animals suffer from these procedures or whether both types or one type of branding is acceptable or unacceptable. But we are very confident that hot-iron branding is much worse than freeze branding in regards to the pain it inflicts. It seems to me that we have some moral obligation to switch (when possible) to the lesser form of invasiveness, when we know for certain one of the procedure causes a greater pain response. I think this approach is very similar to the approach a nutritionist takes in designing a better ration by determining which ration results in a better "outcome" whether the outcome is economic or performance based. The difference of course between nutrition work and work on routine painful procedures is that we do not believe a moral obligation exist for a producer to switch to the better ration, provided neither ration is causing the animals "to suffer". It is indeed difficult to determine, in regards to painful procedures, what exactly is an acceptable and unacceptable amount of suffering, but that should not cause us to ignore the fact that some options can lessen or eliminate suffering altogether. For example, we have the polled gene available to us in beef cattle which will allow us to completely avoid the dehorning procedure and yet we still have a fair number of producers purposefully breeding their cows to horned bulls knowing full well that they intend to dehorn the progeny at some later date with no attempt to mitigate the pain. All the research to date has shown that dehorning without analgesics is painful and all the research to date has shown there are no statistical differences, in all the economic and measurable traits, between populations of polled and horned cattle within the same beef breed. The only way for producers to continue to use horned bulls when they have comparable polled bulls to chose from is by ignoring the idea that we should avoid inflicting unnecessary pain onto animals when possible. As a scientists, producer and consumer I can not defend such practices. > You also wrote: > "That is not positive proof 3 d old piglets do not feel some lingering pain - it is only proof we can not detect it at their age with our techniques." > If I may say so, this sentence is an example of the kind of uncareful writing that betrays a prejudice that is unscientific- The second phrase presumes that 3-d-old piglets do have lingering pain from conventional knife castration but, alas, our current techniques are not sensitive enough to detect ... but if only they were sensitive enough, we jolly well could document that indeed they do have lingering pain- Might not the reason it hasn’t been detected be that it doesn’t exist?-" You are correct, my writing was "uncareful". I meant to imply that the fact we could not find evidence of lingering pain in 3 d old piglets can be explained in two ways 1) There is no lingering pain or 2) Our techniques were unable to detect evidence of lingering pain if it existed. All scientific journal reviewers would expect us to draw those two conclusions. I meant to imply that it matters very much whether one is using the right tools and making the right measurements. When we started our work on branding we tried measuring cortisol levels, the reluctance of animals to re-enter the handling area, weight gain, heightened sensitivity to pain, etc. and could not find a difference between hot-iron and freeze branding or between the branding treatments and the control depending upon what measurements we were using. Did that mean hot-iron and freeze branding were identical or no different from controls from the animal's perspective? No - in this particular area of work it meant our traditional measurements were too crude and it was not until we adapted more sensitive measurements (i.e. exertion force against the head gate, vocal analysis, image analysis of the head movement, etc.) before we could detect the very real differences that existed between these treatments. Cortisol was a poor measure of their response to pain because it was elevated by handling alone regardless of the treatment we imposed. So to say that we could not find evidence of lingering pain in 3 day old piglets, has two possible outcomes 1) that lingering pain from castration does not exist for 3 day old piglets or 2) our techniques were not capable of detecting it, if it does exist. > You also wrote: > "As you stated: ' ‘The day might come….’- But, until that day does come, ….'- …. While you may think that statement holds true until we have better measurements (which I and many scientists already think we do have) - a producer or politician may think the statement infers that there is no need to change - just yet!" > If they were to make such an inference, it would be a grave mistake- I trust that the producers in the dairy, livestock, and poultry industries are willing to change in response to cultural trends, but I expect they will not do so voluntarily on the bases of intuitions and opinions- Rather, they are accustomed to following settled science, and most would require more evidence as to the relationship of observed behavior patterns and the actual amount of suffering the animals experience before drastically changing their practices- > If all beef producers were so willing to follow "settled science", they would not be using horned bulls since the science has clearly shown, as I have previously pointed out, that the polled gene is superior in avoiding unnecessary pain and is equal in all measurable production traits. I should stop here, but I do appreciate the time you have taken to respond to my comments. I will be away for a week and unable to reply again should you want to carry on this discussion, but I do enjoy having this debate with you and it has certainly not weakened my respect for your work or writings. Wishing you the best, Joe Stookey Subject: Re: delivery of pain medication via sow From: Stanley Curtis Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:48:07 -0500 (CDT) To: joseph.stookey@usask.ca CC: "Haley, Derek" , Harold Gonyou , applied-ethology network , Dan Weary , "Ian J.H. Duncan" , Alex Livingston , jane.alcorn@usask.ca, monica.seguin@usask.ca, danielmurphy1@msn.com, "Roybal, Joe" , Emily Patterson-Kane , Tina Widowski Joe- Thanks for your insightful and thoughtful reply- From my point of view, you and I are not very far apart in our thinking- We need a whole lot more such discussion among people of the various germane scientific disciplines who are deeply dedicated to making progress in terms of the average state of being being experienced by the animals we keep on our farms and ranches- Last night I read your website bio, and was struck by the similarity between us in our childhood-on-the-farm fascination by animals of numerous species and the way they behave- I am afraid my conclusions about what was going on was, in many cases, too anthropomorphic and just plain wrong- Anyway, what I did come to find out, a decade or so later, to my great interest, was that -- once the observer is out of the picture and the animals are alone with one another and a video camera -- they behave quite differently than when a human is visiting them in plain view- This was a neat revelation to me, and emphasized for me how very much we have to learn about animal behavior- It also was a lesson in how much the methodology of study of animal behavior matters; live, direct observations are fraught with a lot of questions abult the bias the very presence of the observer has on the animals' behavior- My hope is that other people will join in this discussion on a respectful level- We probably could get together somewhere sometime and sit down around a big table and have a discussion on the topic- But there are great advantages, it seems to me, to use this network as a means of carrying on the discussion- Importantly, this approach allows for more thoughtful inputs- It also is open-ended; a three-day meeting well may not suffice to settle the issues, but this way the discussion can go on as long as it needs to in order to resolve this critical matter- Stan Curtis Department of Animal Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ---- Original message ---- > >Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:17:20 -0600 > >From: joseph stookey > >Subject: Re: delivery of pain medication via sow > >To: securtis@uiuc.edu > >Cc: "Haley, Derek" , Harold Gonyou , applied-ethology network , Dan Weary , "Ian J.H. Duncan" , joseph.stookey@usask.ca, Alex Livingston , jane.alcorn@usask.ca, monica.seguin@usask.ca, danielmurphy1@msn.com, "Roybal, Joe" , Emily Patterson-Kane , Tina Widowski , applied-ethology network > > > >Dear Stan, > > > >you wrote: > > > >If it is meant to imply that I think farm-animal welfare is unimportant > >and does not need our attention, I simply deny such implication- > > > >Stan, I know you think animal welfare is important. I know you have > >been interested and contributed to the field for the bulk of your > >career. My comment was aimed at individuals who are willing to dismiss > >the importance of animal welfare, based on the fact that scientists, > >like you and I, can not agree on how best to measure it or how best to > >act on our results. What I was trying to say is that our debate is not > >about whether animal welfare is important, but whether we use and rely > >on the same scientific measurements to draw our conclusions. Outsiders > >who reads our arguments may miss our critical points and simply believe > >that if the scientists can not agree then there is little for them to > >do, but to continue on with their traditional approach. > > > > >> >>You also wrote: > > >> >> A consumer knows whether she finds a bite of steak to be tender, juicy, > >and tasty and to have good mouthfeel- But no consumer knows how much an > >animal is suffering- And, incidentally, neither does any scientist know > >that > >with any degree of certainty at this time-" > > > >I agree that we can never know for certain HOW much an animal is > >suffering, but we can know whether we have alternatives that cause LESS > >suffering. As an example, most scientists working on painful procedures > >have compared various techniques to valid controls to determine the > >"differences" that may exist between the available options. For > >example, Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein's work on branding was aimed at > >determining the differences in the animals' response between hot-iron, > >freeze branding and a control sham brand. By measuring the force animals > >exert against the head gate during branding, using vocal analysis, and > >by measuring the maximum distance moved and the acceleration of the head > >during the branding process she showed conclusively that hot-iron > >branding caused a much more pronounced escape response, much more > >struggle and higher energy in their vocalizations then did freeze > >branding and sham branding. Our interpretation was that hot-iron > >branding is more painful. As you point out we still do not know how > >much the animals suffer from these procedures or whether both types or > >one type of branding is acceptable or unacceptable. But we are very > >confident that hot-iron branding is much worse than freeze branding in > >regards to the pain it inflicts. It seems to me that we have some > >moral obligation to switch (when possible) to the lesser form of > >invasiveness, when we know for certain one of the procedure causes a > >greater pain response. > > > >I think this approach is very similar to the approach a nutritionist > >takes in designing a better ration by determining which ration results > >in a better "outcome" whether the outcome is economic or performance > >based. The difference of course between nutrition work and work on > >routine painful procedures is that we do not believe a moral obligation > >exist for a producer to switch to the better ration, provided neither > >ration is causing the animals "to suffer". > > > >It is indeed difficult to determine, in regards to painful procedures, > >what exactly is an acceptable and unacceptable amount of suffering, but > >that should not cause us to ignore the fact that some options can lessen > >or eliminate suffering altogether. For example, we have the polled gene > >available to us in beef cattle which will allow us to completely avoid > >the dehorning procedure and yet we still have a fair number of producers > >purposefully breeding their cows to horned bulls knowing full well that > >they intend to dehorn the progeny at some later date with no attempt to > >mitigate the pain. All the research to date has shown that dehorning > >without analgesics is painful and all the research to date has shown > >there are no statistical differences, in all the economic and measurable > >traits, between populations of polled and horned cattle within the same > >beef breed. The only way for producers to continue to use horned bulls > >when they have comparable polled bulls to chose from is by ignoring the > >idea that we should avoid inflicting unnecessary pain onto animals when > >possible. As a scientists, producer and consumer I can not defend such > >practices. > > >> >>You also wrote: >> >>"That is not positive proof 3 d old piglets do not feel some lingering pain - > >it is only proof we can not detect it at their age with our techniques." >> >> If I may say so, this sentence is an example of the kind of uncareful > >writing that betrays a prejudice that is unscientific- The second phrase > >presumes that 3-d-old piglets do have lingering pain from conventional > >knife > >castration but, alas, our current techniques are not sensitive enough to > >detect ... but if only they were sensitive enough, we jolly well could > >document that indeed they do have lingering pain- Might not the reason it > >hasn’t been detected be that it doesn’t exist?-" > > > >You are correct, my writing was "uncareful". I meant to imply that the > >fact we could not find evidence of lingering pain in 3 d old piglets can > >be explained in two ways 1) There is no lingering pain or 2) Our > >techniques were unable to detect evidence of lingering pain if it > >existed. All scientific journal reviewers would expect us to draw those > >two conclusions. I meant to imply that it matters very much whether one > >is using the right tools and making the right measurements. When we > >started our work on branding we tried measuring cortisol levels, the > >reluctance of animals to re-enter the handling area, weight gain, > >heightened sensitivity to pain, etc. and could not find a difference > >between hot-iron and freeze branding or between the branding treatments > >and the control depending upon what measurements we were using. Did > >that mean hot-iron and freeze branding were identical or no different >from controls from the animal's perspective? No - in this particular > >area of work it meant our traditional measurements were too crude and it > >was not until we adapted more sensitive measurements (i.e. exertion > >force against the head gate, vocal analysis, image analysis of the head > >movement, etc.) before we could detect the very real differences that > >existed between these treatments. Cortisol was a poor measure of their > >response to pain because it was elevated by handling alone regardless of > >the treatment we imposed. So to say that we could not find evidence of > >lingering pain in 3 day old piglets, has two possible outcomes 1) that > >lingering pain from castration does not exist for 3 day old piglets or > >2) our techniques were not capable of detecting it, if it does exist. > > > > >> >>You also wrote: >> >>"As you stated: ' ‘The day might come….’- But, until that day does > >come, ….'- …. While you may think that statement holds true until > >we have better measurements (which I and many scientists already think > >we do have) - a producer or politician may think the statement infers > >that there is no need to change - just yet!" >> >> If they were to make such an inference, it would be a grave > >mistake- I trust that the producers in the dairy, livestock, and > >poultry industries are willing to change in response to cultural trends, > >but I expect they will not do so voluntarily on the bases of intuitions > >and opinions- Rather, they are accustomed to following settled science, > >and most would require more evidence as to the relationship of observed > >behavior patterns and the actual amount of suffering the animals experience > >before drastically changing their practices- >> >> > >If all beef producers were so willing to follow "settled science", they > >would not be using horned bulls since the science has clearly shown, as > >I have previously pointed out, that the polled gene is superior in > >avoiding unnecessary pain and is equal in all measurable production traits. > > > >I should stop here, but I do appreciate the time you have taken to > >respond to my comments. I will be away for a week and unable to reply > >again should you want to carry on this discussion, but I do enjoy having > >this debate with you and it has certainly not weakened my respect for > >your work or writings. > > > >Wishing you the best, > > > >Joe Stookey > > Subject: she'll be comin' 'round the mountain From: "E. Wayne Johnson" Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:46:48 -0500 To: applied-ethology network The American journalist and humourist H. Allen Smith, who was born in the same town as me, is one of my favourite writers. If you every get a chance to read "Life in a Putty Knife Factory" (1943), it is a real hoot. Smith also published a book entitled "Don't Get Perconel with a Chicken" in 1959. Excerpt from the Preface to "Dont Get Perconel with a Chicken": Our own children, when they take lead pencil in hand, are seldom abstruse. They hit hard and their meaning is usually clear. Mark Twain once said that the most useful and interesting letters are from children seven or eight years old, for "they tell all they know, and then stop/' And Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: "Pretty much all the honest truthtelling there is in the world is done by children' Both men, I feel sure, were thinking about children in their own land. Truth-telling and complete candor and awful sincerity are to be found in both the talk and the scribblings of our small fry. A teacher asked a ten-year-old to spell the word "straight' The child spelled it cor- rectly and then the teacher said, "Now, what does it mean?" And the child answered, "Without ginger ale." **** **** The title article: A second-grade teacher in Milwaukee greeted her children at the beginning of a new term with an assignment to write a composition on "something important you learned during your vacation." Among the essays turned in was the following: WHAT I LEARND ON MY VACATTION DONT GET PERCONEL WITH A CHICKEN By Eloise Coleman On my vacation I visited with my gran parents in Iowa and my gran father learned me dont get perconel with a chicken. My gran father has a few chickens and one was a chicken I got perconel with and gave the name Gene Autry. One day my gran mother deside to have stood chicken for dinner and says Orf you go out and kill a hen meening my gran father. I went with him and low and behole he took a pole with a wire on the end and reeched in the pen and got Gene Autry by the leg and pulled him out and before I cood say a werd he rung his neck wich pulls off his hed and he flops around on the grond back and forth without no hed on and I cryed. He was a brown one. Then he scalted him in hot water and picket the feathers of and saw me crying and says dont ever get perconel with a chicken. When we are at the dinner table he says it again so I ate some, a drumb stick. I dident say anything but it was like eating my own rellatives. So dont get perconel with a chicken, also a cow if you are going to eat it later on. Also a caff. Subject: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research From: Stanley Curtis Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:59:35 -0500 (CDT) To: applied-ethology network University Wire August 15, 2007 Wednesday Activists oppose Penn State bovine research BYLINE: By Katie Dvorak, Daily Collegian; SOURCE: Penn State LENGTH: 580 words DATELINE: UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. A Penn State study on the dehorning of calves has proven controversial among animal activists since Aug. 10, when it was written about in a national dairy farmer's magazine. The experiment tested a group of calves that were dehorned after being given a combination of sedatives and anesthetics, said Mary Kennett, director of the Penn State Animal Resource Program and professor of veterinary and biomedical sciences. Another group of calves were also dehorned but acted as a control group and were not given the combination of sedatives and anesthetics, she said. The study was used to test if calves given the drugs would experience superior growth, less stress and fewer health problems than those dehorned without the use of drugs, Kennett said. Vicki Fong, assistant director of science and research communications at Penn State, said the Animal Care and Use Committee must review a study before it begins. The committee reviewed the experiment and decided it was worthwhile considering the long-term effects it could have on cows' welfare, Kennett said. An article published on Aug. 10 in Hoard's Dairyman, a national dairy farmer's magazine, brought the study to the attention of animal activists like Robert Cohen. Cohen, the president of the Dairy Education Board, said to do this study on young cows is unethical and pointless. "This is the worst case of animal cruelty I have ever seen," he said. "It's simple -- use anesthesia. These cows are suffering without it." Jen Carr (senior-geography) said she couldn't believe the researchers would do such a cruel thing. "You wouldn't do that to humans. I think it's awful to do it to any other animal," she said. "Even if the research is to help benefit the animals, it's awful that some are being hurt in the process." But Tiffany Morgan (sophomore-animal science) said it's actually more harmful for a cow to have horns. "When the cows are young, their nerves aren't fully developed, so dehorning does not hurt them," she said. "I have dehorned many calves without the use of anesthesia, and it doesn't hurt them at all." Richard Schwartz, president of the Jewish Vegetarians of North America, said compassion for animals should outweigh these studies regardless of the amount of pain they experience during testing. "Even if the pain the animals feel is not extreme, the fact that they are in any pain for the sake of science is very negative," he said. Kennett said activists do not fully understand the study and don't realize that it is to help, not harm, the cows. "I feel confident that it was a misinterpretation of the study, which is not yet complete," Kennett said. According to the article, calves given a sedative and anesthesia before dehorning did not outperform the other calves. The article said the study found no difference in growth rates or calf health between animals that received the drug combination and those that did not. Kennett said the reason the calves were given the drugs was to increase their well-being by optimizing their health and growth. She added that although the results of the study thus far do not show a difference in weight gain between the two groups, other aspects of the study are still ongoing. "We are promoting health and welfare for farm animals through research," she said. "I feel that it is pretty clear, as Penn State veterinarians and researchers, that we care about animals, and our research is to help find better ways to keep them safe and healthy." (C) 2007 Daily Collegian via U-WIRE Subject: RE: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research From: Rick Bogle Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:17:52 -0500 To: applied-ethology network I recently read that the polled gene(s)/characteristic is able to be bred into most(?) breeds of cow. Is this true? The article I was reading was making the case that dehorning is the result of our preference for breeds with horns, all-the-while, a much more humane option exists -- polled breeds. Rick Bogle Madison, WI > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stanley Curtis [mailto:securtis@uiuc.edu] > > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:00 AM > > To: applied-ethology network > > Subject: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research > > > > > > > > University Wire > > > > August 15, 2007 Wednesday > > > > Activists oppose Penn State bovine research > > > > BYLINE: By Katie Dvorak, Daily Collegian; SOURCE: Penn State > > > > LENGTH: 580 words > > > > DATELINE: UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. > > > > A Penn State study on the dehorning of calves has proven > > controversial among animal activists since Aug. 10, when it was > > written about in a national dairy farmer's magazine. > > > > The experiment tested a group of calves that were dehorned after > > being given a combination of sedatives and anesthetics, said Mary > > Kennett, director of the Penn State Animal Resource Program and > > professor of veterinary and biomedical sciences. > > > > Another group of calves were also dehorned but acted as a control > > group and were not given the combination of sedatives and > > anesthetics, she said. > > > > The study was used to test if calves given the drugs would > > experience superior growth, less stress and fewer health problems > > than those dehorned without the use of drugs, Kennett said. > > > > Vicki Fong, assistant director of science and research > > communications at Penn State, said the Animal Care and Use > > Committee must review a study before it begins. > > > > The committee reviewed the experiment and decided it was > > worthwhile considering the long-term effects it could have on > > cows' welfare, Kennett said. > > > > An article published on Aug. 10 in Hoard's Dairyman, a national > > dairy farmer's magazine, brought the study to the attention of > > animal activists like Robert Cohen. > > > > Cohen, the president of the Dairy Education Board, said to do > > this study on young cows is unethical and pointless. > > > > "This is the worst case of animal cruelty I have ever seen," he > > said. "It's simple -- use anesthesia. These cows are suffering > > without it." > > > > Jen Carr (senior-geography) said she couldn't believe the > > researchers would do such a cruel thing. > > > > "You wouldn't do that to humans. I think it's awful to do it to > > any other animal," she said. "Even if the research is to help > > benefit the animals, it's awful that some are being hurt in the process." > > > > But Tiffany Morgan (sophomore-animal science) said it's actually > > more harmful for a cow to have horns. > > > > "When the cows are young, their nerves aren't fully developed, so > > dehorning does not hurt them," she said. "I have dehorned many > > calves without the use of anesthesia, and it doesn't hurt them at all." > > > > Richard Schwartz, president of the Jewish Vegetarians of North > > America, said compassion for animals should outweigh these > > studies regardless of the amount of pain they experience during testing. > > > > "Even if the pain the animals feel is not extreme, the fact that > > they are in any pain for the sake of science is very negative," he said. > > > > Kennett said activists do not fully understand the study and > > don't realize that it is to help, not harm, the cows. > > > > "I feel confident that it was a misinterpretation of the study, > > which is not yet complete," Kennett said. > > > > According to the article, calves given a sedative and anesthesia > > before dehorning did not outperform the other calves. The article > > said the study found no difference in growth rates or calf health > > between animals that received the drug combination and those that did not. > > > > Kennett said the reason the calves were given the drugs was to > > increase their well-being by optimizing their health and growth. > > She added that although the results of the study thus far do not > > show a difference in weight gain between the two groups, other > > aspects of the study are still ongoing. > > > > "We are promoting health and welfare for farm animals through > > research," she said. "I feel that it is pretty clear, as Penn > > State veterinarians and researchers, that we care about animals, > > and our research is to help find better ways to keep them safe > > and healthy." > > > > (C) 2007 Daily Collegian via U-WIRE > > Subject: RE: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research From: Paul Petersan Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:29:11 -0400 To: Rick Bogle , applied-ethology network Today, Cattle Network posted a very interesting article on dehorning - "Cattle Preconditioning Forum: How Are You Dehorning?" It's quite lengthy, so I'll not paste it into this email. Those interested can find it at: http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=152843 If anyone has problems with the link - I can forward the text, just reply to me privately so I don't overwhelm the listserv with posts! Cheers, Paul -----Original Message----- From: Rick Bogle [mailto:rbogle@sonic.net] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 11:18 AM To: applied-ethology network Subject: RE: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research I recently read that the polled gene(s)/characteristic is able to be bred into most(?) breeds of cow. Is this true? The article I was reading was making the case that dehorning is the result of our preference for breeds with horns, all-the-while, a much more humane option exists -- polled breeds. Rick Bogle Madison, WI > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stanley Curtis [mailto:securtis@uiuc.edu] > > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:00 AM > > To: applied-ethology network > > Subject: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research > > > > > > > > University Wire > > > > August 15, 2007 Wednesday > > > > Activists oppose Penn State bovine research > > > > BYLINE: By Katie Dvorak, Daily Collegian; SOURCE: Penn State > > > > LENGTH: 580 words > > > > DATELINE: UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. > > > > A Penn State study on the dehorning of calves has proven controversial > > among animal activists since Aug. 10, when it was written about in a > > national dairy farmer's magazine. > > > > The experiment tested a group of calves that were dehorned after being > > given a combination of sedatives and anesthetics, said Mary Kennett, > > director of the Penn State Animal Resource Program and professor of > > veterinary and biomedical sciences. > > > > Another group of calves were also dehorned but acted as a control > > group and were not given the combination of sedatives and anesthetics, > > she said. > > > > The study was used to test if calves given the drugs would experience > > superior growth, less stress and fewer health problems than those > > dehorned without the use of drugs, Kennett said. > > > > Vicki Fong, assistant director of science and research communications > > at Penn State, said the Animal Care and Use Committee must review a > > study before it begins. > > > > The committee reviewed the experiment and decided it was worthwhile > > considering the long-term effects it could have on cows' welfare, > > Kennett said. > > > > An article published on Aug. 10 in Hoard's Dairyman, a national dairy > > farmer's magazine, brought the study to the attention of animal > > activists like Robert Cohen. > > > > Cohen, the president of the Dairy Education Board, said to do this > > study on young cows is unethical and pointless. > > > > "This is the worst case of animal cruelty I have ever seen," he said. > > "It's simple -- use anesthesia. These cows are suffering without it." > > > > Jen Carr (senior-geography) said she couldn't believe the researchers > > would do such a cruel thing. > > > > "You wouldn't do that to humans. I think it's awful to do it to any > > other animal," she said. "Even if the research is to help benefit the > > animals, it's awful that some are being hurt in the process." > > > > But Tiffany Morgan (sophomore-animal science) said it's actually more > > harmful for a cow to have horns. > > > > "When the cows are young, their nerves aren't fully developed, so > > dehorning does not hurt them," she said. "I have dehorned many calves > > without the use of anesthesia, and it doesn't hurt them at all." > > > > Richard Schwartz, president of the Jewish Vegetarians of North > > America, said compassion for animals should outweigh these studies > > regardless of the amount of pain they experience during testing. > > > > "Even if the pain the animals feel is not extreme, the fact that they > > are in any pain for the sake of science is very negative," he said. > > > > Kennett said activists do not fully understand the study and don't > > realize that it is to help, not harm, the cows. > > > > "I feel confident that it was a misinterpretation of the study, which > > is not yet complete," Kennett said. > > > > According to the article, calves given a sedative and anesthesia > > before dehorning did not outperform the other calves. The article said > > the study found no difference in growth rates or calf health between > > animals that received the drug combination and those that did not. > > > > Kennett said the reason the calves were given the drugs was to > > increase their well-being by optimizing their health and growth. > > She added that although the results of the study thus far do not show > > a difference in weight gain between the two groups, other aspects of > > the study are still ongoing. > > > > "We are promoting health and welfare for farm animals through > > research," she said. "I feel that it is pretty clear, as Penn State > > veterinarians and researchers, that we care about animals, and our > > research is to help find better ways to keep them safe and healthy." > > > > (C) 2007 Daily Collegian via U-WIRE > > Subject: Re: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research From: "E. Wayne Johnson" Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:08:53 -0500 To: Paul Petersan CC: Rick Bogle , applied-ethology network There is no doubt that polled cattle have an advantage in that dehorning is seldom indicated. The advantage of horned cattle does not appear to be the horns themselves but in some associated traits. It is natural for ruminants to have horns and muleys are a mutant form. The generally superior vigour and robustness of horned animals is something that cattlemen agree upon. There is also an apparent negative effect of polledness on some structural traits associated with reproduction. I am not sure whether the robustness is a linked gene effect carried along with the gene defect that causes polledness or if it is a direct effect of the defect. It is not just the horns that are polled. Every cell in the polled animal carries the same defect. Paul Petersan wrote: > Today, Cattle Network posted a very interesting article on dehorning - > "Cattle Preconditioning Forum: How Are You Dehorning?" > > It's quite lengthy, so I'll not paste it into this email. Those > interested can find it at: > http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=152843 > > If anyone has problems with the link - I can forward the text, just > reply to me privately so I don't overwhelm the listserv with posts! > > Cheers, > > Paul > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Bogle [mailto:rbogle@sonic.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 11:18 AM > To: applied-ethology network > Subject: RE: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research > > I recently read that the polled gene(s)/characteristic is able to be > bred into most(?) breeds of cow. > > Is this true? > > The article I was reading was making the case that dehorning is the > result of our preference for breeds with horns, all-the-while, a much > more humane option exists -- polled breeds. > > Rick Bogle > Madison, WI > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stanley Curtis [mailto:securtis@uiuc.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:00 AM >> To: applied-ethology network >> Subject: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research >> >> >> >> University Wire >> >> August 15, 2007 Wednesday >> >> Activists oppose Penn State bovine research >> >> BYLINE: By Katie Dvorak, Daily Collegian; SOURCE: Penn State >> >> LENGTH: 580 words >> >> DATELINE: UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. >> >> A Penn State study on the dehorning of calves has proven controversial >> > > >> among animal activists since Aug. 10, when it was written about in a >> national dairy farmer's magazine. >> >> The experiment tested a group of calves that were dehorned after being >> > > >> given a combination of sedatives and anesthetics, said Mary Kennett, >> director of the Penn State Animal Resource Program and professor of >> veterinary and biomedical sciences. >> >> Another group of calves were also dehorned but acted as a control >> group and were not given the combination of sedatives and anesthetics, >> > > >> she said. >> >> The study was used to test if calves given the drugs would experience >> superior growth, less stress and fewer health problems than those >> dehorned without the use of drugs, Kennett said. >> >> Vicki Fong, assistant director of science and research communications >> at Penn State, said the Animal Care and Use Committee must review a >> study before it begins. >> >> The committee reviewed the experiment and decided it was worthwhile >> considering the long-term effects it could have on cows' welfare, >> Kennett said. >> >> An article published on Aug. 10 in Hoard's Dairyman, a national dairy >> farmer's magazine, brought the study to the attention of animal >> activists like Robert Cohen. >> >> Cohen, the president of the Dairy Education Board, said to do this >> study on young cows is unethical and pointless. >> >> "This is the worst case of animal cruelty I have ever seen," he said. >> "It's simple -- use anesthesia. These cows are suffering without it." >> >> Jen Carr (senior-geography) said she couldn't believe the researchers >> would do such a cruel thing. >> >> "You wouldn't do that to humans. I think it's awful to do it to any >> other animal," she said. "Even if the research is to help benefit the >> animals, it's awful that some are being hurt in the process." >> >> But Tiffany Morgan (sophomore-animal science) said it's actually more >> harmful for a cow to have horns. >> >> "When the cows are young, their nerves aren't fully developed, so >> dehorning does not hurt them," she said. "I have dehorned many calves >> without the use of anesthesia, and it doesn't hurt them at all." >> >> Richard Schwartz, president of the Jewish Vegetarians of North >> America, said compassion for animals should outweigh these studies >> regardless of the amount of pain they experience during testing. >> >> "Even if the pain the animals feel is not extreme, the fact that they >> are in any pain for the sake of science is very negative," he said. >> >> Kennett said activists do not fully understand the study and don't >> realize that it is to help, not harm, the cows. >> >> "I feel confident that it was a misinterpretation of the study, which >> is not yet complete," Kennett said. >> >> According to the article, calves given a sedative and anesthesia >> before dehorning did not outperform the other calves. The article said >> > > >> the study found no difference in growth rates or calf health between >> animals that received the drug combination and those that did not. >> >> Kennett said the reason the calves were given the drugs was to >> increase their well-being by optimizing their health and growth. >> She added that although the results of the study thus far do not show >> a difference in weight gain between the two groups, other aspects of >> the study are still ongoing. >> >> "We are promoting health and welfare for farm animals through >> research," she said. "I feel that it is pretty clear, as Penn State >> veterinarians and researchers, that we care about animals, and our >> research is to help find better ways to keep them safe and healthy." >> >> (C) 2007 Daily Collegian via U-WIRE >> >> > > Subject: Re: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research From: "E. Wayne Johnson" Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:52:20 -0500 To: Paul Petersan CC: Rick Bogle , applied-ethology network The best way to de-horn cattle is to use a bull that is homozygous for the polled gene when the offspring will be destined for market as beef animals. When the female offspring would be used for breeding purposes, it may be desirable to use a horned bull to take advantage of the correlated traits associated with the presence of horns. E. Wayne Johnson wrote: > There is no doubt that polled cattle have an advantage in that > dehorning is seldom indicated. > > The advantage of horned cattle does not appear to be the horns themselves > but in some associated traits. It is natural for ruminants to have horns > and muleys are a mutant form. > > The generally superior vigour and robustness of horned animals is something that cattlemen agree upon. > > There is also an apparent negative effect of polledness on some structural traits associated with reproduction. > > I am not sure whether the robustness is a linked gene effect carried along with the gene defect that causes > polledness or if it is a direct effect of the defect. > It is not just the horns that are polled. > Every cell in the polled animal carries the same defect. > > Paul Petersan wrote: >> Today, Cattle Network posted a very interesting article on dehorning - >> "Cattle Preconditioning Forum: How Are You Dehorning?" >> >> It's quite lengthy, so I'll not paste it into this email. Those >> interested can find it at: >> http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=152843 >> If anyone has problems with the link - I can forward the text, just >> reply to me privately so I don't overwhelm the listserv with posts! >> >> Cheers, >> >> Paul >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rick Bogle [mailto:rbogle@sonic.net] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 11:18 AM >> To: applied-ethology network >> Subject: RE: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research >> >> I recently read that the polled gene(s)/characteristic is able to be >> bred into most(?) breeds of cow. >> >> Is this true? >> >> The article I was reading was making the case that dehorning is the >> result of our preference for breeds with horns, all-the-while, a much >> more humane option exists -- polled breeds. >> >> Rick Bogle >> Madison, WI >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Stanley Curtis [mailto:securtis@uiuc.edu] >>> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:00 AM >>> To: applied-ethology network >>> Subject: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research >>> >>> >>> >>> University Wire >>> >>> August 15, 2007 Wednesday >>> >>> Activists oppose Penn State bovine research >>> >>> BYLINE: By Katie Dvorak, Daily Collegian; SOURCE: Penn State >>> >>> LENGTH: 580 words >>> >>> DATELINE: UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. >>> >>> A Penn State study on the dehorning of calves has proven controversial >>> >> >> >>> among animal activists since Aug. 10, when it was written about in a national dairy farmer's magazine. >>> >>> The experiment tested a group of calves that were dehorned after being >>> >> >> >>> given a combination of sedatives and anesthetics, said Mary Kennett, director of the Penn State Animal Resource Program and professor of veterinary and biomedical sciences. >>> >>> Another group of calves were also dehorned but acted as a control group and were not given the combination of sedatives and anesthetics, >>> >> >> >>> she said. >>> >>> The study was used to test if calves given the drugs would experience superior growth, less stress and fewer health problems than those dehorned without the use of drugs, Kennett said. >>> >>> Vicki Fong, assistant director of science and research communications at Penn State, said the Animal Care and Use Committee must review a study before it begins. >>> >>> The committee reviewed the experiment and decided it was worthwhile considering the long-term effects it could have on cows' welfare, Kennett said. >>> >>> An article published on Aug. 10 in Hoard's Dairyman, a national dairy farmer's magazine, brought the study to the attention of animal activists like Robert Cohen. >>> >>> Cohen, the president of the Dairy Education Board, said to do this study on young cows is unethical and pointless. >>> >>> "This is the worst case of animal cruelty I have ever seen," he said. "It's simple -- use anesthesia. These cows are suffering without it." >>> >>> Jen Carr (senior-geography) said she couldn't believe the researchers would do such a cruel thing. >>> >>> "You wouldn't do that to humans. I think it's awful to do it to any other animal," she said. "Even if the research is to help benefit the animals, it's awful that some are being hurt in the process." >>> >>> But Tiffany Morgan (sophomore-animal science) said it's actually more harmful for a cow to have horns. >>> >>> "When the cows are young, their nerves aren't fully developed, so dehorning does not hurt them," she said. "I have dehorned many calves without the use of anesthesia, and it doesn't hurt them at all." >>> >>> Richard Schwartz, president of the Jewish Vegetarians of North America, said compassion for animals should outweigh these studies regardless of the amount of pain they experience during testing. >>> >>> "Even if the pain the animals feel is not extreme, the fact that they are in any pain for the sake of science is very negative," he said. >>> >>> Kennett said activists do not fully understand the study and don't realize that it is to help, not harm, the cows. >>> >>> "I feel confident that it was a misinterpretation of the study, which is not yet complete," Kennett said. >>> >>> According to the article, calves given a sedative and anesthesia before dehorning did not outperform the other calves. The article said >>> >> >> >>> the study found no difference in growth rates or calf health between animals that received the drug combination and those that did not. >>> >>> Kennett said the reason the calves were given the drugs was to increase their well-being by optimizing their health and growth. >>> She added that although the results of the study thus far do not show a difference in weight gain between the two groups, other aspects of the study are still ongoing. >>> >>> "We are promoting health and welfare for farm animals through research," she said. "I feel that it is pretty clear, as Penn State veterinarians and researchers, that we care about animals, and our research is to help find better ways to keep them safe and healthy." >>> >>> (C) 2007 Daily Collegian via U-WIRE >>> >>> >> >> Subject: RE: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research From: "Petherick, Carol" Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:10:54 +1000 To: Rick Bogle , applied-ethology network Rick and others I emphasise that I am not a geneticist, but this is my "simple" understanding of the situation. The heritability of the horn/poll genes is relatively straightforward in Bos taurus breeds and poll is epistatic to horn. As a consequence it is relatively simple to breed for polledness (and there are many polled breeds). There are issues, however, when you concentrate on selection of a few traits - it can lead to detrimental effects through the selection of other "unintentional" genes. Research done in beef breeds indicate that there are no detrimental effects, in terms of productivity, of polledness. However, perceptions persist. Dairy cattle have long been selected for milk production - and this has gone along without any co-selection for horned/polled status. Consequently, the vast majority of the breeding stock are horned and produce horned offspring. In Bos indicus cattle, the heritability is far more complex because of "genes" for scurs and the African horn gene. Some modelling work done here in Queensland suggests that, given the uncertainty of the phenotype/genotype interaction and the limited number of poll sires, it will be many many decades before polled indicus animals predominate through traditional selection methods. However, research is currently ongoing to find gene markers for horn, poll, scur and African horn to better understand their expression. If this research is successful it will make the breeding of polled animals much faster. However, there are again perceptions that horned animals are superior in terms of productivity and poll is associated with "problems" e.g. I've been told that red-coated, poll, Brahman bulls are predisposed to spiral deviation of the penis. However, I suspect such problems have arisen from a very focussed selection for a few (or single) trait with a very limited gene pool. Carol Carol Petherick Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 1484 Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au -----Original Message----- From: Rick Bogle [mailto:rbogle@sonic.net] Sent: Friday, 17 August 2007 1:18 AM To: applied-ethology network Subject: RE: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research I recently read that the polled gene(s)/characteristic is able to be bred into most(?) breeds of cow. Is this true? The article I was reading was making the case that dehorning is the result of our preference for breeds with horns, all-the-while, a much more humane option exists -- polled breeds. Rick Bogle Madison, WI > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stanley Curtis [mailto:securtis@uiuc.edu] > > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:00 AM > > To: applied-ethology network > > Subject: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research > > > > > > > > University Wire > > > > August 15, 2007 Wednesday > > > > Activists oppose Penn State bovine research > > > > BYLINE: By Katie Dvorak, Daily Collegian; SOURCE: Penn State > > > > LENGTH: 580 words > > > > DATELINE: UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. > > > > A Penn State study on the dehorning of calves has proven controversial > > among animal activists since Aug. 10, when it was written about in a > > national dairy farmer's magazine. > > > > The experiment tested a group of calves that were dehorned after being > > given a combination of sedatives and anesthetics, said Mary Kennett, > > director of the Penn State Animal Resource Program and professor of > > veterinary and biomedical sciences. > > > > Another group of calves were also dehorned but acted as a control > > group and were not given the combination of sedatives and anesthetics, > > she said. > > > > The study was used to test if calves given the drugs would experience > > superior growth, less stress and fewer health problems than those > > dehorned without the use of drugs, Kennett said. > > > > Vicki Fong, assistant director of science and research communications > > at Penn State, said the Animal Care and Use Committee must review a > > study before it begins. > > > > The committee reviewed the experiment and decided it was worthwhile > > considering the long-term effects it could have on cows' welfare, > > Kennett said. > > > > An article published on Aug. 10 in Hoard's Dairyman, a national dairy > > farmer's magazine, brought the study to the attention of animal > > activists like Robert Cohen. > > > > Cohen, the president of the Dairy Education Board, said to do this > > study on young cows is unethical and pointless. > > > > "This is the worst case of animal cruelty I have ever seen," he said. > > "It's simple -- use anesthesia. These cows are suffering without it." > > > > Jen Carr (senior-geography) said she couldn't believe the researchers > > would do such a cruel thing. > > > > "You wouldn't do that to humans. I think it's awful to do it to any > > other animal," she said. "Even if the research is to help benefit the > > animals, it's awful that some are being hurt in the process." > > > > But Tiffany Morgan (sophomore-animal science) said it's actually more > > harmful for a cow to have horns. > > > > "When the cows are young, their nerves aren't fully developed, so > > dehorning does not hurt them," she said. "I have dehorned many calves > > without the use of anesthesia, and it doesn't hurt them at all." > > > > Richard Schwartz, president of the Jewish Vegetarians of North > > America, said compassion for animals should outweigh these studies > > regardless of the amount of pain they experience during testing. > > > > "Even if the pain the animals feel is not extreme, the fact that they > > are in any pain for the sake of science is very negative," he said. > > > > Kennett said activists do not fully understand the study and don't > > realize that it is to help, not harm, the cows. > > > > "I feel confident that it was a misinterpretation of the study, which > > is not yet complete," Kennett said. > > > > According to the article, calves given a sedative and anesthesia > > before dehorning did not outperform the other calves. The article said > > the study found no difference in growth rates or calf health between > > animals that received the drug combination and those that did not. > > > > Kennett said the reason the calves were given the drugs was to > > increase their well-being by optimizing their health and growth. > > She added that although the results of the study thus far do not show > > a difference in weight gain between the two groups, other aspects of > > the study are still ongoing. > > > > "We are promoting health and welfare for farm animals through > > research," she said. "I feel that it is pretty clear, as Penn State > > veterinarians and researchers, that we care about animals, and our > > research is to help find better ways to keep them safe and healthy." > > > > (C) 2007 Daily Collegian via U-WIRE > > ********************************DISCLAIMER**************************** The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network.