Subject: FW: [COMPMED] swine feeding policies From: Ray Stricklin Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:06:15 -0400 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca CC: 'Christine Alvarado' Message below was posted on COMPMED but could maybe be answered by someone from the Applied Ethology group by sending directly to Dr. Christine Alvarado [calvarad@med.umich.edu]. Regards to All, Ray Stricklin University of Maryland Cc: Christine Alvarado -----Original Message----- From: (COMPMED) Comparative Medicine List [mailto:COMPMED@LISTSERV.AALAS.ORG] On Behalf Of Christine Alvarado Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 10:56 AM To: COMPMED@LISTSERV.AALAS.ORG Subject: [COMPMED] swine feeding policies Hello All, I was wondering if domestic swine users would be willing to share their feeding policies. Currently we use each pig's weight to determine how much to feed each day. We currently feed that amount once per day. The question was raised if it would be more appropriate to split the amount and feed twice a day. So for the domestic swine users out there do you: 1. Feed animals ad lib? 2. Feed measured amounts? 3. If feed measured amounts, at what frequency? Thanks for all you help, Christine Alvarado Christine M. Alvarado, DVM Resident, Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine Postdoctoral Fellow University of Michigan Medical School 012 ARF 1150 W. Medical Center Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0614 (734) 936-1696 ********************************************************** Electronic Mail is not secure, may not be read every day, and should not be used for urgent or sensitive issues Subject: Horned vs. polled cattle From: joseph stookey Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:02:51 -0600 To: "E. Wayne Johnson" CC: Paul Petersan , Rick Bogle , applied-ethology network HI, I have been away for a week and unable to respond to the discussion regarding the use of the polled gene as a way of "dehorning" beef cattle. E. Wayne raised the issue that I often hear when talking to producers that there is "something" better about horned beef cattle compared to polled cattle. My response is "show me the data", because to date I have not found a single scientific publication which has shown a significant advantage of horned cattle. No doubt there are superior individual animals within the horned and polled populations, but on a breed basis there is no significant difference between horned and polled beef cattle within the same breed. Below is a list of the traits that have been scientifically compared between horned to polled cattle made within the same breed. These traits have economic importance and in every incidence there is no advantage of having horned cattle, though in one study the polled cattle were superior. 1) Average daily gain, adjusted yearly weight, scrotal measurements and back fat thickness - comparisons from 578 Charolais bulls and 1,860 Hereford bulls on test in Alberta and Saskatchewan provinces. Results showed polled Hereford bulls in SK to have higher average daily gain. Polled Charolais bulls were fatter at the end of test in Saskatchewan. No differences in scrotal measurements or adjusted yearly weight. (Stookey, J. M. and Goonewardene, L.A. 1996. Can. J. Anim Sci. 76;1-5. 2) Polled German Simmental cattle were no different from their horned counterparts in growth, carcass yield, carcass composition, health and reproductive performance (Lange. 1989. Thesis. Ludwig-Mazimilians-Universat Muchen, Federal Republic of Germany). 3) Horned and polled crossbred lines from various beef breeds were no different in live weight, fertility and mortality rates (Frisch, J.E., H. Nishimura, K.J. Cousins and G. H. Turner. 1980. Anim. Prod. 31:119-126). 4) In comparisons of 3 beef synthetic lines there were no differences between horned and polled cattle in birth weight, weaning weight, pre and post average daily gain, carcass weight and carcass characterisitcs. (Goonewardence, L.A., M.A. Price, M. F. Liu, R. T. Berg and C. M. Erichsen. 1999. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 79:383-385). 5) In comparisons of 3 beef synthetic lines there were no differences between horned and polled cattle in reproductive traits such as pregnancy rates, dystocia scores, cow weights or cow condition scores (Goonewardence, L.A., H. Pang, R. T. Berg and M.A. Price. 1999. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 79:123-127). It is interesting to note that most beef associations in Canada are showing an increase in the number of polled animals that are being registered. In 1989 the number of polled Limousins registered by the Canadian Limousin Association represented only 18% of the new registrations. In 1999 the number of Limousins registered as polled had increased to 49%. The same trend has occurred in the Simmental breed with 14% of the registrations in 1989 reported as polled, while 32% of the animals registered in 1999 were reported to be naturally polled. The Charolais breed in Canada is moving, perhaps the fastest of any exotic breeds, towards the polled animal. The frequency of polled animals registered between 1988-1990 was already 38% and by 1998-2000 polled Charolais animals represented 65.5% of the association's registrations. Fortunately, the selection for polled animals in exotic breeds seems to be the current trend. Horned Hereford breeders seem to be the exception to the trend and in my opinion they represent the only hold out in adopting the polled gene. They are the only beef breed that keeps claiming that horned animals are superior in what I call "elusive non-measurable traits" such as "vigor and robustness". If someone could define for me what exactly is meant by these two terms, perhaps we could go out and measure them. Until someone can prove to me otherwise, I will maintain that polled and horned beef animals within the same breed are equal, accept in the area of animal welfare, in which case horned animals carry the distinct disadvantage. The use of the polled gene in dairy breeds is a whole different issue and currently the horned dairy animals, in general, have superior milking characteristics over their polled counterparts - likely because the insertion of the polled gene into the dairy breeds came from polled beef animals. With time and selection this could be corrected. 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: FW: Seeking instructor for psychopharm - animal behavior From: Ray Stricklin Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:22:14 -0400 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Forwarded as requested. -----Original Message----- From: Robert DeFranco [mailto:rdefranco@amcollege.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 2:39 PM To: 'Ray Stricklin' Cc: mcassoret@amcollege.com Subject: Seeking instructor for psychopharm - animal behavior Ray, I trust that you are having a nice summer. Our Dept. of Animal Science is seeking an adjunct professor who is qualified to teach a 12-week online graduate course in psychopharmacology as it applies to behavior in companion animals beginning October 1. We had a veterinarian teaching it but she has just advised us that she must take the semester off. There is an existing syllabus ad course notes. Of course, the incoming instructor can always make changes. If you may know of a colleague anywhere on the globe, it would be much appreciated. I would attempt to post this myself on A/E but the list software hates me and things never get out . Thanks. RD Robert DeFranco, M.S., (Ph.D. in progress), B.C.C.A.B. President American College of Applied Science 123 Dream Pond Road P.O. Box 825 Crescent City, FL 32112-0825 USA U.S. Phone: 800-403-3347, ext 709 Phone from outside of the U.S. 407-574-3956 Fax: 386-698-3756 Email: rdefranco@amcollege.com Web site: http://amcollege.com Realizing your dreams through online higher education. NOTICE: This e-mail and the attachments hereto, if any, may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. It is intended only for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and the attachments hereto, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone and permanently delete this e-mail and the attachments hereto, if any, and destroy any printout thereof. -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:06 PM To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Cc: 'Christine Alvarado' Subject: FW: [COMPMED] swine feeding policies Message below was posted on COMPMED but could maybe be answered by someone from the Applied Ethology group by sending directly to Dr. Christine Alvarado [calvarad@med.umich.edu]. Regards to All, Ray Stricklin University of Maryland Cc: Christine Alvarado -----Original Message----- From: (COMPMED) Comparative Medicine List [mailto:COMPMED@LISTSERV.AALAS.ORG] On Behalf Of Christine Alvarado Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 10:56 AM To: COMPMED@LISTSERV.AALAS.ORG Subject: [COMPMED] swine feeding policies Hello All, I was wondering if domestic swine users would be willing to share their feeding policies. Currently we use each pig's weight to determine how much to feed each day. We currently feed that amount once per day. The question was raised if it would be more appropriate to split the amount and feed twice a day. So for the domestic swine users out there do you: 1. Feed animals ad lib? 2. Feed measured amounts? 3. If feed measured amounts, at what frequency? Thanks for all you help, Christine Alvarado Christine M. Alvarado, DVM Resident, Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine Postdoctoral Fellow University of Michigan Medical School 012 ARF 1150 W. Medical Center Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0614 (734) 936-1696 ********************************************************** Electronic Mail is not secure, may not be read every day, and should not be used for urgent or sensitive issues Subject: FW: [COMPMED] York Piglet Source in the NW USA Area? From: Ray Stricklin Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:11:02 -0400 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca CC: "'Ahmadi, Sayed'" , "'Croney, Candace'" , "'Newberry, Ruth'" Forwarded to Applied-Ethology group. Ray Stricklin -----Original Message----- From: (COMPMED) Comparative Medicine List [mailto:COMPMED@LISTSERV.AALAS.ORG] On Behalf Of Ahmadi, Sayed Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 11:18 AM To: COMPMED@LISTSERV.AALAS.ORG Subject: [COMPMED] York Piglet Source in the NW Area? Hi All, An investigator is looking for a reliable, steady supply of Yorkshire piglets in the 13-16kg (30-35lb) range for ongoing studies. Delivery of 2-3 piglets needed weekly. Local, quality, reliable, NW farm big or small preferred. Any suggestions or pointers in the right direction? Thanks much! Sayed Ahmadi, RLAT Animal Care Supervisor Office of Animal Care Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute 307 Westlake Ave N, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98109 Mailstop: CW Ofc: 206-987-7444 Pgr: 206.469.4112 Fax: 206.987.7443 Cell: 206.355.1978 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Subject: FW: [COMPMED] Old chickens From: Ray Stricklin Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:22:18 -0400 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca, "'Newberry, Ruth'" , "'Croney, Candace'" CC: 'Kim Saunders' Forwarded to Applied Ethology group. -----Original Message----- From: (COMPMED) Comparative Medicine List [mailto:COMPMED@LISTSERV.AALAS.ORG] On Behalf Of Kim Saunders Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:36 PM To: COMPMED@LISTSERV.AALAS.ORG Subject: [COMPMED] Old chickens Dear Comp-medders, I have an investigator that is looking for hens that are at least 2 years old. As expected, our efforts to locate any locally or through the usual vendors have been unsuccessful due to the advanced age he is requesting. If any of you have a source for old chickens, I would appreciate hearing from you. Thanks, Kim Kim E. Saunders, DVM, Dipl. ACLAM Director and Professor Department of Comparative Medicine Oregon Health & Science University (503) 494-8425 saunderk@OHSU.edu Subject: Re: Horned vs. polled cattle From: "E. Wayne Johnson" Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:57:02 -0500 To: joseph.stookey@usask.ca CC: Paul Petersan , Rick Bogle , applied-ethology network I think that one way of characterizing vigour and robustness is in adaptability in the face of oft stressful environments. Now, just because we don't YET have a means for quantifying variables that are subjective doesnt mean that the subjective observations are invalid. And I have formed the basis for most of what I do and have done on the philosophy that we have to measure things. Man must measure. Qualitative observations do have some utility particularly in the discovery areas of science. Subjective observations are often integrative, combining multiple principal components. The old hands and the old masters can bring some experience that is often expressed in qualitative terms that sometimes seem wacky to gringos who have academic training only. The people who have made real progress in genetics tend to be those with a "knack" for the art of it, the Barbara McClintocks of the world. It comes after spending a lot of time with the material. The old masters in China could "see" the points and meridians in the body. The West is still wondering whether or not such a thing as points and meridians even exist, but that's because in their limited experience, no one has other gotten hold of THEM by one of their points, which thing would adjust their attitude as well as their "qi". * Gerald M. Weinberg, the great systems thinker, introduced me to this thought from [Science Magazine, Volume 146, Number 3642 16 October 1964, Science, Strong Inference -- Proper Scientific Method (The New Baconians) by John R. Platt]: "Today we preach that science is not science unless it is quantitative. We substitute correlations for causal studies, and physical equations for organic reasoning. Measurements and equations are supposed to sharpen thinking, but, in my observation, they more often tend to make the thinking noncausal and fuzzy. They tend to become the object of scientific manipulation instead of auxiliary tests of crucial inferences. Many - perhaps most - of the great issues of science are qualitative, not quantitative, even in physics and chemistry. Equations and measurements are useful when and only when they are related to proof; but proof or disproof comes first and is in fact strongest when it is absolutely convincing without any quantitative measurement. Or to say it another way, you can catch phenomena in a logical box or in a mathematical box. The logical box is coarse but strong. The mathematical box is fine-grained but flimsy. The mathematical box is a beautiful way of wrapping up a problem, but it will not hold the phenomena unless they have been caught in a logical box to begin with." * So, I agree with the idea that during the introduction of the polled gene, some other traits unselected for have suffered, which accounts for some of the observed effect of polledness. However, it "seems to be" more than that. joseph stookey wrote: > HI, > > I have been away for a week and unable to respond to the discussion regarding the use of the polled gene as a way of "dehorning" beef cattle. E. Wayne raised the issue that I often hear when talking to producers that there is "something" better about horned beef cattle compared to polled cattle. My response is "show me the data", because to date I have not found a single scientific publication which has shown a significant advantage of horned cattle. No doubt there are superior individual animals within the horned and polled populations, but on a breed basis there is no significant difference between horned and polled beef cattle within the same breed. > > Below is a list of the traits that have been scientifically compared between horned to polled cattle made within the same breed. These traits have economic importance and in every incidence there is no advantage of having horned cattle, though in one study the polled cattle were superior. > > 1) Average daily gain, adjusted yearly weight, scrotal measurements and back fat thickness - comparisons from 578 Charolais bulls and 1,860 Hereford bulls on test in Alberta and Saskatchewan provinces. Results showed polled Hereford bulls in SK to have higher average daily gain. Polled Charolais bulls were fatter at the end of test in Saskatchewan. No differences in scrotal measurements or adjusted yearly weight. (Stookey, J. M. and Goonewardene, L.A. 1996. Can. J. Anim Sci. 76;1-5. > > 2) Polled German Simmental cattle were no different from their horned counterparts in growth, carcass yield, carcass composition, health and reproductive performance (Lange. 1989. Thesis. Ludwig-Mazimilians-Universat Muchen, Federal Republic of Germany). > > 3) Horned and polled crossbred lines from various beef breeds were no different in live weight, fertility and mortality rates (Frisch, J.E., H. Nishimura, K.J. Cousins and G. H. Turner. 1980. Anim. Prod. 31:119-126). > > 4) In comparisons of 3 beef synthetic lines there were no differences between horned and polled cattle in birth weight, weaning weight, pre and post average daily gain, carcass weight and carcass characterisitcs. (Goonewardence, L.A., M.A. Price, M. F. Liu, R. T. Berg and C. M. Erichsen. 1999. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 79:383-385). > > 5) In comparisons of 3 beef synthetic lines there were no differences between horned and polled cattle in reproductive traits such as pregnancy rates, dystocia scores, cow weights or cow condition scores (Goonewardence, L.A., H. Pang, R. T. Berg and M.A. Price. 1999. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 79:123-127). > > It is interesting to note that most beef associations in Canada are showing an increase in the number of polled animals that are being registered. In 1989 the number of polled Limousins registered by the Canadian Limousin Association represented only 18% of the new registrations. In 1999 the number of Limousins registered as polled had increased to 49%. The same trend has occurred in the Simmental breed with 14% of the registrations in 1989 reported as polled, while 32% of the animals registered in 1999 were reported to be naturally polled. The Charolais breed in Canada is moving, perhaps the fastest of any exotic breeds, towards the polled animal. The frequency of polled animals registered between 1988-1990 was already 38% and by 1998-2000 polled Charolais animals represented 65.5% of the association's registrations. Fortunately, the selection for polled animals in exotic breeds seems to be the current trend. > > Horned Hereford breeders seem to be the exception to the trend and in my opinion they represent the only hold out in adopting the polled gene. They are the only beef breed that keeps claiming that horned animals are superior in what I call "elusive non-measurable traits" such as "vigor and robustness". If someone could define for me what exactly is meant by these two terms, perhaps we could go out and measure them. Until someone can prove to me otherwise, I will maintain that polled and horned beef animals within the same breed are equal, accept in the area of animal welfare, in which case horned animals carry the distinct disadvantage. > The use of the polled gene in dairy breeds is a whole different issue and currently the horned dairy animals, in general, have superior milking characteristics over their polled counterparts - likely because the insertion of the polled gene into the dairy breeds came from polled beef animals. With time and selection this could be corrected. > > Cheers, > > Joe > Subject: Re: Horned vs. polled cattle From: Stanley Curtis Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:20:46 -0500 (CDT) To: "E. Wayne Johnson" , joseph.stookey@usask.ca CC: Paul Petersan , Rick Bogle , applied-ethology network Wayne- Your thoughts are related to the premises of the performance axiom for assessing farm-animal state pof being- I presume: = that you are meaning that there need to be both subjective observations and objective measurements . . . and that neither alone will suffice- = that objective measurements need to fit in context of subjective observations made in light of existing scientific evidence- = that subjective observation in the absence of direct, objective measurement does not serve as sufficient basis for drawing firm and therefore useful conclusions- -Stan ---- Original message ---- > >Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:57:02 -0500 > >From: "E. Wayne Johnson" > >Subject: Re: Horned vs. polled cattle > >To: joseph.stookey@usask.ca > >Cc: Paul Petersan , Rick Bogle , applied-ethology network > > > >I think that one way of characterizing vigour and robustness is in > >adaptability in the face of oft stressful environments. > > > >Now, just because we don't YET have a means for quantifying variables > >that are subjective doesnt mean that the subjective observations are > >invalid. > > > >And I have formed the basis for most of what I do and have done on the > >philosophy that we have to measure things. Man must measure. > > > >Qualitative observations do have some utility particularly in the > >discovery areas of science. Subjective observations are often integrative, > >combining multiple principal components. The old hands and the old > >masters can bring some experience that is often expressed > >in qualitative terms that sometimes seem wacky to gringos who have > >academic training only. > > > >The people who have made real progress in genetics tend to be those with > >a "knack" for the art of it, > >the Barbara McClintocks of the world. It comes after spending a lot of > >time with the material. > >The old masters in China could "see" the points and meridians in the > >body. The West is still wondering whether or not > >such a thing as points and meridians even exist, but that's because in > >their limited experience, no one has other > >gotten hold of THEM by one of their points, which thing would adjust > >their attitude as well as their "qi". > > > >* > > > >Gerald M. Weinberg, the great systems thinker, introduced me to this > >thought from [Science Magazine, Volume 146, Number 3642 > >16 October 1964, Science, Strong Inference -- Proper Scientific Method > >(The New Baconians) by John R. Platt]: > > > >"Today we preach that science is not science unless it is quantitative. > >We substitute correlations for causal studies, and physical equations > >for organic reasoning. Measurements and equations are supposed to > >sharpen thinking, but, in my observation, they more often tend to make > >the thinking noncausal and fuzzy. They tend to become the object of > >scientific manipulation instead of auxiliary tests of crucial inferences. > > > >Many - perhaps most - of the great issues of science are qualitative, > >not quantitative, even in physics and chemistry. Equations and > >measurements are useful when and only when they are related to proof; > >but proof or disproof comes first and is in fact strongest when it is > >absolutely convincing without any quantitative measurement. > > > >Or to say it another way, you can catch phenomena in a logical box or in > >a mathematical box. The logical box is coarse but strong. The > >mathematical box is fine-grained but flimsy. The mathematical box is a > >beautiful way of wrapping up a problem, but it will not hold the > >phenomena unless they have been caught in a logical box to begin with." > > > >* > > > >So, I agree with the idea that during the introduction of the polled > >gene, some other traits unselected for have suffered, which > > > >accounts for some of the observed effect of polledness. However, it > >"seems to be" more than that. > > > > > >joseph stookey wrote: >> >> HI, >> >> >> >> I have been away for a week and unable to respond to the discussion >> >> regarding the use of the polled gene as a way of "dehorning" beef >> >> cattle. E. Wayne raised the issue that I often hear when talking to >> >> producers that there is "something" better about horned beef cattle >> >> compared to polled cattle. My response is "show me the data", because >> >> to date I have not found a single scientific publication which has >> >> shown a significant advantage of horned cattle. No doubt there are >> >> superior individual animals within the horned and polled populations, >> >> but on a breed basis there is no significant difference between horned >> >> and polled beef cattle within the same breed. >> >> >> >> Below is a list of the traits that have been scientifically compared >> >> between horned to polled cattle made within the same breed. These >> >> traits have economic importance and in every incidence there is no >> >> advantage of having horned cattle, though in one study the polled >> >> cattle were superior. >> >> >> >> 1) Average daily gain, adjusted yearly weight, scrotal measurements >> >> and back fat thickness - comparisons from 578 Charolais bulls and >> >> 1,860 Hereford bulls on test in Alberta and Saskatchewan provinces. >> >> Results showed polled Hereford bulls in SK to have higher average >> >> daily gain. Polled Charolais bulls were fatter at the end of test in >> >> Saskatchewan. No differences in scrotal measurements or adjusted >> >> yearly weight. (Stookey, J. M. and Goonewardene, L.A. 1996. Can. J. >> >> Anim Sci. 76;1-5. >> >> >> >> 2) Polled German Simmental cattle were no different from their horned >> >> counterparts in growth, carcass yield, carcass composition, health and >> >> reproductive performance (Lange. 1989. Thesis. >> >> Ludwig-Mazimilians-Universat Muchen, Federal Republic of Germany). >> >> >> >> 3) Horned and polled crossbred lines from various beef breeds were no >> >> different in live weight, fertility and mortality rates (Frisch, J.E., >> >> H. Nishimura, K.J. Cousins and G. H. Turner. 1980. Anim. Prod. >> >> 31:119-126). >> >> >> >> 4) In comparisons of 3 beef synthetic lines there were no differences >> >> between horned and polled cattle in birth weight, weaning weight, pre >> >> and post average daily gain, carcass weight and carcass >> >> characterisitcs. (Goonewardence, L.A., M.A. Price, M. F. Liu, R. T. >> >> Berg and C. M. Erichsen. 1999. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 79:383-385). >> >> >> >> 5) In comparisons of 3 beef synthetic lines there were no differences >> >> between horned and polled cattle in reproductive traits such as >> >> pregnancy rates, dystocia scores, cow weights or cow condition scores >> >> (Goonewardence, L.A., H. Pang, R. T. Berg and M.A. Price. 1999. Can. >> >> J. Anim. Sci. 79:123-127). >> >> >> >> It is interesting to note that most beef associations in Canada are >> >> showing an increase in the number of polled animals that are being >> >> registered. In 1989 the number of polled Limousins registered by the >> >> Canadian Limousin Association represented only 18% of the new >> >> registrations. In 1999 the number of Limousins registered as polled >> >> had increased to 49%. The same trend has occurred in the Simmental >> >> breed with 14% of the registrations in 1989 reported as polled, while >> >> 32% of the animals registered in 1999 were reported to be naturally >> >> polled. The Charolais breed in Canada is moving, perhaps the fastest >> >> of any exotic breeds, towards the polled animal. The frequency of >> >> polled animals registered between 1988-1990 was already 38% and by >> >> 1998-2000 polled Charolais animals represented 65.5% of the >> >> association's registrations. Fortunately, the selection for polled >> >> animals in exotic breeds seems to be the current trend. >> >> >> >> Horned Hereford breeders seem to be the exception to the trend and in >> >> my opinion they represent the only hold out in adopting the polled >> >> gene. They are the only beef breed that keeps claiming that horned >> >> animals are superior in what I call "elusive non-measurable traits" >> >> such as "vigor and robustness". If someone could define for me what >> >> exactly is meant by these two terms, perhaps we could go out and >> >> measure them. Until someone can prove to me otherwise, I will >> >> maintain that polled and horned beef animals within the same breed are >> >> equal, accept in the area of animal welfare, in which case horned >> >> animals carry the distinct disadvantage. >> >> The use of the polled gene in dairy breeds is a whole different issue >> >> and currently the horned dairy animals, in general, have superior >> >> milking characteristics over their polled counterparts - likely >> >> because the insertion of the polled gene into the dairy breeds came >> >> from polled beef animals. With time and selection this could be >> >> corrected. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Joe >> >> Subject: Re: Horned vs. polled cattle From: joseph stookey Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:18:16 -0600 To: "E. Wayne Johnson" CC: Paul Petersan , Rick Bogle , applied-ethology network E. Wayne Johnson wrote: So, I agree with the idea that during the introduction of the polled gene, some other traits unselected for have suffered, which accounts for some of the observed effect of polledness. However, it "seems to be" more than that. Dear E. Wayne, I still don't know exactly what current traits are suffering in beef cattle because of polledness. What exactly is making the polled cattle inferior in your estimation? Or am I misinterpreting your comments? 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: Horned vs. polled cattle From: "E. Wayne Johnson" Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:28:36 -0500 To: securtis@uiuc.edu CC: joseph.stookey@usask.ca, Paul Petersan , Rick Bogle , applied-ethology network I was reading Feynman recently and he was talking about how he became familiar enough with some mathematical systems that he could "see" the solution without working out the answer the long way. I have worked with real stockmen who have that kind of subjective savvy. The long way has a lot going for it in terms of proof and exactness and accountability and answering questions among the skeptical and keeping us out of trouble. But subjective observations are often a starting point and gives us clues when we might otherwise be "clueless". * Relative to the performance axiom of animal assessment - Assessments and guidelines require unequivocal, clear, and dependable communications of states of being. It is the part of what Platt calls "wrapping up" stage of science. Subjective measurements do not stand up to the test of being unequivocal, clear, and dependable. Sometimes new measures have to be developed to quantify what may be supremely obvious subjectively to the trained and experienced eye. For example, we are presently using glycosaminoglycan content to quantify cartilage health rather than the obvious subjective assessment of lameness and OCD scores, because of the difficulty or fear of difficulty in reproducing the subjective scores among assessors and evaluators. The barn is wet and the air stinks and its hard to breathe in this barn (subjective) but the Relative Humidity is 85% and measured inlet velocity is nil (objective). If we can fix just those those quantities (activity toward an objective) then the air quality improves substantially (subjectively). The objective component nails down the facts. But its the subjective component that sends one back to the truck or the office to get the psychrometer. Stanley Curtis wrote: > > Wayne- > > Your thoughts are related to the premises of the performance axiom for assessing farm-animal state pof being- > > I presume: > > = that you are meaning that there need to be both subjective observations and objective measurements . . . and that neither alone will suffice- > > = that objective measurements need to fit in context of subjective observations made in light of existing scientific evidence- > > = that subjective observation in the absence of direct, objective measurement does not serve as sufficient basis for drawing firm and therefore useful conclusions- > > -Stan > > ---- Original message ---- > >> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:57:02 -0500 >> From: "E. Wayne Johnson" Subject: Re: Horned vs. polled cattle To: joseph.stookey@usask.ca >> Cc: Paul Petersan , Rick Bogle , applied-ethology network >> >> I think that one way of characterizing vigour and robustness is in adaptability in the face of oft stressful environments. >> >> Now, just because we don't YET have a means for quantifying variables that are subjective doesnt mean that the subjective observations are invalid. >> >> And I have formed the basis for most of what I do and have done on the philosophy that we have to measure things. Man must measure. >> >> Qualitative observations do have some utility particularly in the discovery areas of science. Subjective observations are often integrative, >> combining multiple principal components. The old hands and the old masters can bring some experience that is often expressed >> in qualitative terms that sometimes seem wacky to gringos who have academic training only. >> >> The people who have made real progress in genetics tend to be those with a "knack" for the art of it, >> the Barbara McClintocks of the world. It comes after spending a lot of time with the material. >> The old masters in China could "see" the points and meridians in the body. The West is still wondering whether or not >> such a thing as points and meridians even exist, but that's because in their limited experience, no one has other >> gotten hold of THEM by one of their points, which thing would adjust their attitude as well as their "qi". >> >> * >> >> Gerald M. Weinberg, the great systems thinker, introduced me to this thought from [Science Magazine, Volume 146, Number 3642 >> 16 October 1964, Science, Strong Inference -- Proper Scientific Method (The New Baconians) by John R. Platt]: >> >> "Today we preach that science is not science unless it is quantitative. We substitute correlations for causal studies, and physical equations for organic reasoning. Measurements and equations are supposed to sharpen thinking, but, in my observation, they more often tend to make the thinking noncausal and fuzzy. They tend to become the object of scientific manipulation instead of auxiliary tests of crucial inferences. >> >> Many - perhaps most - of the great issues of science are qualitative, not quantitative, even in physics and chemistry. Equations and measurements are useful when and only when they are related to proof; but proof or disproof comes first and is in fact strongest when it is absolutely convincing without any quantitative measurement. >> >> Or to say it another way, you can catch phenomena in a logical box or in a mathematical box. The logical box is coarse but strong. The mathematical box is fine-grained but flimsy. The mathematical box is a beautiful way of wrapping up a problem, but it will not hold the phenomena unless they have been caught in a logical box to begin with." >> >> * >> >> So, I agree with the idea that during the introduction of the polled gene, some other traits unselected for have suffered, which >> >> accounts for some of the observed effect of polledness. However, it "seems to be" more than that. >> >> >> joseph stookey wrote: >> >>> HI, >>> >>> I have been away for a week and unable to respond to the discussion regarding the use of the polled gene as a way of "dehorning" beef cattle. E. Wayne raised the issue that I often hear when talking to producers that there is "something" better about horned beef cattle compared to polled cattle. My response is "show me the data", because to date I have not found a single scientific publication which has shown a significant advantage of horned cattle. No doubt there are superior individual animals within the horned and polled populations, but on a breed basis there is no significant difference between horned and polled beef cattle within the same breed. >>> >>> Below is a list of the traits that have been scientifically compared between horned to polled cattle made within the same breed. These traits have economic importance and in every incidence there is no advantage of having horned cattle, though in one study the polled cattle were superior. >>> >>> 1) Average daily gain, adjusted yearly weight, scrotal measurements and back fat thickness - comparisons from 578 Charolais bulls and 1,860 Hereford bulls on test in Alberta and Saskatchewan provinces. Results showed polled Hereford bulls in SK to have higher average daily gain. Polled Charolais bulls were fatter at the end of test in Saskatchewan. No differences in scrotal measurements or adjusted yearly weight. (Stookey, J. M. and Goonewardene, L.A. 1996. Can. J. Anim Sci. 76;1-5. >>> >>> 2) Polled German Simmental cattle were no different from their horned counterparts in growth, carcass yield, carcass composition, health and reproductive performance (Lange. 1989. Thesis. Ludwig-Mazimilians-Universat Muchen, Federal Republic of Germany). >>> >>> 3) Horned and polled crossbred lines from various beef breeds were no different in live weight, fertility and mortality rates (Frisch, J.E., H. Nishimura, K.J. Cousins and G. H. Turner. 1980. Anim. Prod. 31:119-126). >>> >>> 4) In comparisons of 3 beef synthetic lines there were no differences between horned and polled cattle in birth weight, weaning weight, pre and post average daily gain, carcass weight and carcass characterisitcs. (Goonewardence, L.A., M.A. Price, M. F. Liu, R. T. Berg and C. M. Erichsen. 1999. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 79:383-385). >>> >>> 5) In comparisons of 3 beef synthetic lines there were no differences between horned and polled cattle in reproductive traits such as pregnancy rates, dystocia scores, cow weights or cow condition scores (Goonewardence, L.A., H. Pang, R. T. Berg and M.A. Price. 1999. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 79:123-127). >>> >>> It is interesting to note that most beef associations in Canada are showing an increase in the number of polled animals that are being registered. In 1989 the number of polled Limousins registered by the Canadian Limousin Association represented only 18% of the new registrations. In 1999 the number of Limousins registered as polled had increased to 49%. The same trend has occurred in the Simmental breed with 14% of the registrations in 1989 reported as polled, while 32% of the animals registered in 1999 were reported to be naturally polled. The Charolais breed in Canada is moving, perhaps the fastest of any exotic breeds, towards the polled animal. The frequency of polled animals registered between 1988-1990 was already 38% and by 1998-2000 polled Charolais animals represented 65.5% of the association's registrations. Fortunately, the selection for polled animals in exotic breeds seems to be the current trend. >>> >>> Horned Hereford breeders seem to be the exception to the trend and in my opinion they represent the only hold out in adopting the polled gene. They are the only beef breed that keeps claiming that horned animals are superior in what I call "elusive non-measurable traits" such as "vigor and robustness". If someone could define for me what exactly is meant by these two terms, perhaps we could go out and measure them. Until someone can prove to me otherwise, I will maintain that polled and horned beef animals within the same breed are equal, accept in the area of animal welfare, in which case horned animals carry the distinct disadvantage. >>> The use of the polled gene in dairy breeds is a whole different issue and currently the horned dairy animals, in general, have superior milking characteristics over their polled counterparts - likely because the insertion of the polled gene into the dairy breeds came from polled beef animals. With time and selection this could be corrected. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> > > Subject: Re: Horned vs. polled cattle From: "E. Wayne Johnson" Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:10:53 -0500 To: joseph.stookey@usask.ca CC: Paul Petersan , Rick Bogle , applied-ethology network I have done my share of dehorning using several techniques, with anesthesia when time and situation would permit, and sometimes without any anesthesia other than what the animal itself could muster in its own system. I will agree that the best way to dehorn cattle is with a polled bull. I could stand with Joe and be zealous about polled bulls and say that dehorning is no fun at all for any of the participants. Nevertheless, there is a continued popularity of horned cattle that persists even in the face of obvious inferiority in one trait, the need to remove horns, dodge squirting arteries, treat the wounds for maggots, nurse my mangled fingers, etc...that whole mess that goes with dehorning. Now, given the reproductive rate of cattle and the generation interval and the productive life of the cow and the tendency of the industry toward faddism, it is really quite a challenge to hold focus and live long enough to make substantive genetic changes resulting in a uniform cow herd. I sat down at the supper table one night and figured out that it would take me about 27 years or so to build a really good cow herd from scratch, and I figured that by the time I had completed the task, the goal would have shifted on me that I might be completely out of sync with the current goal. (it is partly the reason I have worked with pigs most of the time) But even with all the time and money difficulties in making genetic change in cattle, one would see horns disappear were it not that there is something more to the presence of the horn than just the horn itself. It is not just ignorance and inertia and orneryness among stockmen that keeps the horns there. * The lack of vigour and robustness is easier to quantify perhaps than the presence of it. (Could I say it's something like the "anointing"? It's hard to say what the anointing is exactly sometimes but you can sure tell when it ain't there. And those of you who have no idea what I am talking about will call it heresy or foolishness.) We have worked with genetic lines that lack vigour. I am not talking about hybrid vigour. Some of the most vigourous animals I have worked with have been from relatively inbred or linebred "lines". Lack of vigour and robustness shows up in things like the failure to breed (call it libido if you like) in adverse conditions like heat, cold, icyness, etc., and the failure to survive and thrive under such conditions. These are sows that dont eat enough (lack appetite), dont compete well with other sows to eat, piglets that dont get up and nurse because they dont feel good enough to eat. Such animals are born looking for a corner to crawl off and die in. Someone said that polled Herefords were more docile. Some wise guy said they simply didn't feel good enough to fight. Another wise guy remarked that the members of certain family in the neighborhood were generally immoral, but they were also too lazy to steal and lacked the necessary vigour for committing some other common sins. Even with the best management things can get tough at times. It's why we want an little extra vigour in there. joseph stookey wrote: > E. Wayne Johnson wrote: > > So, I agree with the idea that during the introduction of the polled gene, some other traits unselected for have suffered, which > accounts for some of the observed effect of polledness. However, it "seems to be" more than that. > > > Dear E. Wayne, > > I still don't know exactly what current traits are suffering in beef cattle because of polledness. What exactly is making the polled cattle inferior in your estimation? Or am I misinterpreting your comments? > Cheers, > > Joe > Subject: Re: Horned vs. polled cattle From: joseph stookey Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:46:14 -0600 To: "E. Wayne Johnson" CC: Paul Petersan , Rick Bogle , applied-ethology network , Dan Murphy , jrobal@beef-mag.com Dear E. Wayne and others, I still maintain that people claiming that polled cattle are inferior to their horned counterparts do not have a leg to stand on in regards to credible evidence to support their claim. If lack of "vigour and robustness" influences such traits as breeding soundness, libido, appetite, disease susceptibility, heat tolerance, etc. it would show up in measurable traits such as reproductive efficiency, fertility, scrotal circumference, average daily gain, feed efficiency, death rates, morbidity, carcass traits, etc. And based on those measurements there is no scientific or statistical differences between the two populations of cattle within the same breed. I am not denying that some individual animals in the horned population may be better than some individual animals in the polled population - of course we could find some, but we could also find some in the reverse direction and identify some polled animals that are superior to their horned counterparts. This discussion is not about individual animals, but about populations of animals, which I maintain are equal. Wayne, you mentioned that it takes considerable time and generations to select for and achieve certain desirable traits in cattle. I agree, but the polled gene has been around for over 100 years in the Hereford breed alone, not to mention how long it has been present in the Angus breed. Just how long and how many generations do you think it takes for a breed to reach certain desirable criteria? I maintain that if horned cattle are so superior because of their ancestry, then they got that way because of selection. Horned cattle became 'excellent cattle' because some cattle breeders had the 'eye' and ability to select superior breeding stock. How is it that only horned cattle breeders could have obtained such a "trained eye" for breeding superior cattle? Obviously, selection for superior polled stock has been going on for 100 years or more and certainly within that time frame there would have been superior polled cattle and superior polled cattle breeders too. Perhaps historically the polled cattle were inferior, but I think it is time to admit (and certainly the science supports the view) that the polled beef cattle have reached the same level of performance in all measurable traits as their horned counterparts. And if horned cattle breeders are so superior in their selection abilities, then they owe it to society and to our animals to use those superior breeding and selection skills to help bring the polled animals up to their high standards (as if the high standards have not already been met in the polled breeds). As you know, all the introduced exotic continental breeds of cattle in N. America (i.e. Simmental, Charolais, Limousin, Gelbvieh, etc.) often came into N. America via semen or bulls, not by importing entire herds of cattle. It means that we have "recreated" those breeds through selection and sound breeding programs. The exotic N. American breed associations have recognized that producers could start with some other breed as foundation stock and "breed up" to purebred status. So in 4 or 5 generations or when the cattle had 15/16 or a greater percentage of their genetics coming from a particular breed, then those cattle were considered purebred. It is amazing to think we have these breeds of cattle in N America today which are every bit as good as the original breeds from their home country (in fact, some of the European breeders come here for breeding stock and semen - often to buy polled stock), yet according to some horned cattle breeders it is impossible to ever have polled cattle as good as their horned counterparts. It defies logic. It is also worth pointing out that because black colored cattle have been receiving a premium dollar in N. America, due to the strong promotion, etc. of the Angus breed, that we now have black Simmentals, black Limousins and black Gelbvieh cattle. Exotic cattle breeders are changing their cattle into black cattle to take advantage of the premiums being paid for blacks. The black color obviously came into those breeds via the Angus breed (a naturally polled breed). It must mean that it is acceptable to use another breed to obtain a color change and still not "ruin" the original breed. Therefore, why would it be unacceptable to use another breed to obtain the polled gene? Why the difference in logic? It would seem to me that the polled gene is just as easy to "move" between breeds and keep the desired traits as are the color genes. As final proof of the absurdity that horned beef cattle are superior to their polled counterparts, I challenge anyone to go into a slaughter plant and randomly select 100 carcasses and tell me which ones are carrying the polled gene. I would also challenge anyone to accurately pick horned from polled bulls from pictures and data of bulls in a sire catalog, if the heads of the bulls were kept from view. Until someone can do that with any degree of accuracy, by simply looking at the carcasses, looking at data or headless pictures of cattle or until someone conducts a scientific study which proves horned cattle carry some superior characteristics, then I will not be swayed. The only reason horned cattle breeders continue to breed horns onto their cattle is because they have collectively convinced themselves and the buyers of their stock that horned animals are superior cattle, but they have done so without any credible or scientific evidence. They have likely done so with the same level of denial they use to convince themselves that dehorning cattle without analgesics is acceptable and painless. All the rhetoric by the livestock industries that they can not economically afford to address animal welfare issues or that they would willingly do so if there was sufficient science to support a reason to change is wrapped up within this issue of dehorning cattle without anaglesics and the use of the polled gene to accomplish the same end point. The science, economics and welfare considerations are all quite clear on the direction we should take to address the issue of dehorning in beef cattle - quit breeding horns onto them! I realize this sounds like I am trashing the cattle industry, but I am not lashing out at the entire industry. I am proud to be a cattle producer myself and to be associated with the cattle industry in my life and work. I have simply disbudded and dehorned enough cattle to know it is time to end this barbaric practice. I credit cattlemen with having lots of common sense, but there are also some of them that have lots of "common nonsense" when it comes to the issue of dehorning cattle and how best to accomplish it. 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: Horned vs. polled cattle From: Emily Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:14:57 -0500 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca The suggested innate superiority of horned cattle comes down to a matter of faith, IMHO. That is, a belief that has not and perhaps cannot be objectively proven and is not really falsifiable for the target audience--which is not to imply it cannot also be absolutely true. However the idea that incorrect belief will not perpetuate in a trade or profession does not strike me as plausible. I have not worked with cattle but have been subject to vehement, contradictory and often demonstrably false 'lab lore' and 'expert/common knowledge' about other species some which which dates back for decades and just has not be subject to question or testing. Subject: RE: Horned vs. polled cattle From: "Petherick, Carol" Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:49:13 +1000 To: joseph.stookey@usask.ca, "E. Wayne Johnson" CC: Paul Petersan , Rick Bogle , applied-ethology network , Dan Murphy , jrobal@beef-mag.com All This is an e-mail I sent to the list previously which appears not to have got through and is relevant for this issue of "inferiority" of polled cattle; there are problems with some breeds/crossbreeds but this is because selection has focussed on a very small number of traits (often a single one) with a very limited gene pool: From: Petherick, Carol [mailto:Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 17 August 2007 8:11 AM To: Rick Bogle; applied-ethology network Subject: RE: Activists oppose Penn State bovine research 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 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: joseph stookey [mailto:joseph.stookey@usask.ca] Sent: Friday, 24 August 2007 3:46 AM To: E. Wayne Johnson Cc: Paul Petersan; Rick Bogle; applied-ethology network; Dan Murphy; jrobal@beef-mag.com Subject: Re: Horned vs. polled cattle Dear E. Wayne and others, I still maintain that people claiming that polled cattle are inferior to their horned counterparts do not have a leg to stand on in regards to credible evidence to support their claim. If lack of "vigour and robustness" influences such traits as breeding soundness, libido, appetite, disease susceptibility, heat tolerance, etc. it would show up in measurable traits such as reproductive efficiency, fertility, scrotal circumference, average daily gain, feed efficiency, death rates, morbidity, carcass traits, etc. And based on those measurements there is no scientific or statistical differences between the two populations of cattle within the same breed. I am not denying that some individual animals in the horned population may be better than some individual animals in the polled population - of course we could find some, but we could also find some in the reverse direction and identify some polled animals that are superior to their horned counterparts. This discussion is not about individual animals, but about populations of animals, which I maintain are equal. Wayne, you mentioned that it takes considerable time and generations to select for and achieve certain desirable traits in cattle. I agree, but the polled gene has been around for over 100 years in the Hereford breed alone, not to mention how long it has been present in the Angus breed. Just how long and how many generations do you think it takes for a breed to reach certain desirable criteria? I maintain that if horned cattle are so superior because of their ancestry, then they got that way because of selection. Horned cattle became 'excellent cattle' because some cattle breeders had the 'eye' and ability to select superior breeding stock. How is it that only horned cattle breeders could have obtained such a "trained eye" for breeding superior cattle? Obviously, selection for superior polled stock has been going on for 100 years or more and certainly within that time frame there would have been superior polled cattle and superior polled cattle breeders too. Perhaps historically the polled cattle were inferior, but I think it is time to admit (and certainly the science supports the view) that the polled beef cattle have reached the same level of performance in all measurable traits as their horned counterparts. And if horned cattle breeders are so superior in their selection abilities, then they owe it to society and to our animals to use those superior breeding and selection skills to help bring the polled animals up to their high standards (as if the high standards have not already been met in the polled breeds). As you know, all the introduced exotic continental breeds of cattle in N. America (i.e. Simmental, Charolais, Limousin, Gelbvieh, etc.) often came into N. America via semen or bulls, not by importing entire herds of cattle. It means that we have "recreated" those breeds through selection and sound breeding programs. The exotic N. American breed associations have recognized that producers could start with some other breed as foundation stock and "breed up" to purebred status. So in 4 or 5 generations or when the cattle had 15/16 or a greater percentage of their genetics coming from a particular breed, then those cattle were considered purebred. It is amazing to think we have these breeds of cattle in N America today which are every bit as good as the original breeds from their home country (in fact, some of the European breeders come here for breeding stock and semen - often to buy polled stock), yet according to some horned cattle breeders it is impossible to ever have polled cattle as good as their horned counterparts. It defies logic. It is also worth pointing out that because black colored cattle have been receiving a premium dollar in N. America, due to the strong promotion, etc. of the Angus breed, that we now have black Simmentals, black Limousins and black Gelbvieh cattle. Exotic cattle breeders are changing their cattle into black cattle to take advantage of the premiums being paid for blacks. The black color obviously came into those breeds via the Angus breed (a naturally polled breed). It must mean that it is acceptable to use another breed to obtain a color change and still not "ruin" the original breed. Therefore, why would it be unacceptable to use another breed to obtain the polled gene? Why the difference in logic? It would seem to me that the polled gene is just as easy to "move" between breeds and keep the desired traits as are the color genes. As final proof of the absurdity that horned beef cattle are superior to their polled counterparts, I challenge anyone to go into a slaughter plant and randomly select 100 carcasses and tell me which ones are carrying the polled gene. I would also challenge anyone to accurately pick horned from polled bulls from pictures and data of bulls in a sire catalog, if the heads of the bulls were kept from view. Until someone can do that with any degree of accuracy, by simply looking at the carcasses, looking at data or headless pictures of cattle or until someone conducts a scientific study which proves horned cattle carry some superior characteristics, then I will not be swayed. The only reason horned cattle breeders continue to breed horns onto their cattle is because they have collectively convinced themselves and the buyers of their stock that horned animals are superior cattle, but they have done so without any credible or scientific evidence. They have likely done so with the same level of denial they use to convince themselves that dehorning cattle without analgesics is acceptable and painless. All the rhetoric by the livestock industries that they can not economically afford to address animal welfare issues or that they would willingly do so if there was sufficient science to support a reason to change is wrapped up within this issue of dehorning cattle without anaglesics and the use of the polled gene to accomplish the same end point. The science, economics and welfare considerations are all quite clear on the direction we should take to address the issue of dehorning in beef cattle - quit breeding horns onto them! I realize this sounds like I am trashing the cattle industry, but I am not lashing out at the entire industry. I am proud to be a cattle producer myself and to be associated with the cattle industry in my life and work. I have simply disbudded and dehorned enough cattle to know it is time to end this barbaric practice. I credit cattlemen with having lots of common sense, but there are also some of them that have lots of "common nonsense" when it comes to the issue of dehorning cattle and how best to accomplish it. 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 ********************************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. Subject: RE: Horned vs. polled cattle From: Ray Stricklin Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:57:54 -0400 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Dear All, The debate about horns in cattle has a long, long history. But in short, for the most part - there is no basis for believing that somehow the “horn gene” is linked to other traits that produce a “superior” type of cattle in performance, vigor, or otherwise. And since this issue has been a pet peeve of mine for many years, I cannot resist jumping into the fray. (And maybe I should note that I have not read in detail all recently posted correspondence on this topic.) Much of the horn-polled mythology dates to the method that was used to create the Polled Hereford breed: “In the year 1900, at age 55, Warren Gammon, set his course to develop a purebred Polled Hereford. He began by writing to all 2500 members of the American Hereford Association, inquiring if they might have a hornless, registered Hereford. Out of 1500 replies, he located 14 purebred Herefords, born without horns; 4 bulls and 10 cows. A jubilant Gammon bought all but one cow; two cows proved barren, reducing the number of foundation cows to 7.” And from the start Gammon was criticized for attempting to produce hornless Herefords, but he rebuked his critics with the contention that, “Horns are no more essential for cattle than they are for horses, hogs or sheep.” (The above statements are from http://www.herefordamerica.com/history.htm - and I might add, that this site includes some statements about genetics that I consider to be incorrect.) The small gene pool used in the formation of the Polled Hereford breed resulted in Polled Herefords that were, in fact, inferior in performance to the horned Herefords at that time – and at a population level, this was true through probably the 1960’s and maybe beyond. But over time, the American Polled Hereford Association used outcrossing combined with selection that resulted in the Polled Hereford breed becoming comparable to the horned Herefords in performance – as Joe Stookey has noted. And the initial and continuing controversy about horns was in part due to there being two separate breed associations; American Hereford Association (AHA) and American Polled Hereford Association (APHA) and they did not get along, especially during the early years of the APHA. There was very bad blood between them – and between individual cattlemen resulting in a least one fist fight at a Kansas City cattle show sometime in the 1960’s, as I recall. Finally, in 1995 the AHA and the APHA were merged, with AHA now registering all Herefords with the polled individuals identified as such. (And I might add that in the late 1980’s during the drafting of the first edition of the “Guide for the Use of Agricultural Animals Used in Teaching and Research” that I wanted to include a statement that would promote the use of polled bulls to eliminate the need to de-horn calves. But the beef committee – and others – felt that at that time that it might be too controversial to include such a statement. I am pleased that such a statement was included in the second edition.) And regarding vigor, I would again argue that there is no basis for contending that horned animals are somehow more vigorous than polled cattle. While the following is not based on actual research data - I grew up on a commercial beef farm that had straight-bred Hereford cattle. We had horned Herefords through about 1970 (heavily from the Domino line) and then we started using polled bulls (many of Justamere breeding – and Joe you may be aware that it was the Fox family near Lloydminster in Saskatchewan that developed this very influential line of cattle – and I think the family is still active in breeding cattle today). But what I wanted to say is that the only difference of any significance between when we used horned bulls and polled bulls was that we did not have to dehorn the calves! I might add that today my bother and nephew have a brood-cow group that is a synthetic of breeds including some Zebu, Angus, Norway Red, Beefmaster and Hereford breeding. And this is typical of commercial beef production today – with some form of outbreeding being common for most all commercial beef operations. And the breed associations are rapidly decreasing in importance – including fewer and fewer animals being registered. According to Field and Taylor (2007; Intro to Anim Sci), the AHA registered 419,000 cattle in 1975 and less than 69,000 in 2005. And following a major North American blizzard sometime around 1890 which killed off Shorthorn (the most common breed at that time), the hardiness of Hereford cattle was recognized and resulted in their dominating beef numbers in North America for decades. But the American Angus Association surpassed the AHA in number of cattle registered in 1995, and now greatly outnumbers all other breed associations with over 298,000 registrations in 2005 – mostly due to the word Angus now being a registered trademark in the USA and associated with a successful ad campaign. And the fact that Angus cattle are hornless additionally debunks the idea that the so-called horn gene is somehow linked to better performance in cattle. In fact - at the molecular level, the “polled gene” very well may be nothing more than a single point mutation possibly at the initiation site (5’ end) of the DNA strand – that blocks mRNA from attaching to the DNA ; thus, completely preventing the expression of the code for horns. (And I must admit that this previous statement is based primarily on info dating back to an idea I presented in a term paper for a biophysics course in 1974 – and not on my having kept current with recent molecular research on the topic.) Nevertheless, it is highly improbable that the polled gene is somehow a complete deletion of a section of DNA all of which codes for the expression of a horn. In fact I know of anecdotal accounts where a horned calf has been produced within herds which are thought to be homozygous polled. And these horned animals do not have a whole new type of horn; rather it is a horn of the “wild type” common to Bos taurus cattle. If these anecdotal accounts indicate a back mutation, it would support the idea that a single point mutation (maybe nothing more than a change in only one nucleic acid) has occurred within the ATG initiation sequence common to all mammalian genes. And I checked with a colleague who is current in the developments of molecular genes, and he tells me there are a number of other possibilities for a mutation to occur of a very minor nature that could block the expression of the horn-DNA sequence – that is, the gene effect that we have come to call the “poll gene.” (And I might add that it is theoretically possible for an epigenetic effect to exist that blocks expression of horns and also influences other traits – but there is simply no supporting correlation-type data to support such an effect as Joe has noted. However, Carol Petherick raises an interesting question regarding Bos indicus and the African horn type. I believe it could be that there are gene differences that do have implications beyond just the expression of horns in these cattle.) But bottom line – I believe the use of polled bulls should be promoted. And regarding the dairy industry, one could argue that most all these cattle are not dehorned but rather are de-budded by which I mean that for heifers, the horn bud is removed while the calf is still very young and before it attaches and becomes a horn (done by either a mechanical, chemical or burning technique in heifers; whereas, most every bull calf is not dehorned or de-budded and rather are sold before becoming old enough for significant horn development) – I would still argue that the industry should be working toward identifying high indexing polled bulls and then using them. And finally, a note regarding the initial posting having to do with the attack against the Pennsylvania State University research on calves and analgesics that initiated the Applied-Ethology discussion about horns, etc. The article that was posted stated that Robert Cohen was president of the Dairy Education Board – an organization which I had not heard about previously. The responses from GOOGLE I got seem to indicate that this organization may be basically a one-person operation with only one goal and that is to attack the dairy industry on all fronts. I suggest this might be true on the basis of info I saw at the following sites: http://www.bapd.org/gdaard-1.html http://www.notmilk.com/ Regards to all, Ray Stricklin Subject: Horned vs. polled cattle From: Stanley Curtis Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:55:03 -0500 (CDT) To: applied-ethology network CC: John Comerford The following comments are from Dr. John Comerford, beef cattle geneticist and extension specialist at Penn State University, who permitted their being passed on to the applied-ethology list- Subject: Re: RE: Horned vs. polled cattle From: "John Comerford" Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:54:01 -0400 To: securtis@uiuc.edu Stan: Thanks for sharing the discussion with me. I am not sure what PSU project was involved-it was not one of mine. I think a grad student in the dairy group was doing some work with dehorning. I am not in tune with the technology Ray describes, but I think there may be some population genetics at work. The perception-as was pointed out-was that there was a genetic correlation between the presence of horns and traits such as vigor and longevity. I certainly agree with the notion there is no evidence of a correlation with carcass and performance traits. It would take a detailed search of the literature to determine if these comparisons were made, but I expect the gene pool from studies like that would be very different from that today. However, traits such as vigor are probably maternal (mitochondrial DNA) and have a low heritability. This leads one to consider a genetic-environmental response to these traits. Historically, the horned Hereford was selected in the western high plains, while the polled Hereford was generally in a midwestern and/ or southern environment. At the point when-after a number of generations of natural and artificial selection based on the respective environments-the horned animals were introduced to the East and the polled to the West, variation in these traits would have been obvious. The perception that horned and polled cattle were different for some traits was in fact true under these conditions. Genetic-environmental interactions are well documented in the beef cattle literature, and have recently caused some problems for the prediction of EPDs for some bulls within breeds. The dilution of the Polled Hereford breed with horned genetics is now occurring since they are recognized as the same breed, so the determination of specific gene effects would have to be done at the molecular level. I seriously doubt, however, that one could find significant differences for traits of economic importance in the population of Hereford cattle relative to the horned gene(s). In fact, because many of the traits in question have low heritability, crossing horned and polled lines would result in variability from heterosis, further masking the additive genetic differences. It was good to see you in San Antonio, and I hope you are doing well. John On 8/23/07, Stanley Curtis < securtis@uiuc.edu> wrote: John- Ray Stricklin finally weighed in with an informative posting- I would still be interested in your take on the topic- -Stan Dear All, The debate about horns in cattle has a long, long history. But in short, for the most part - there is no basis for believing that somehow the "horn gene" is linked to other traits that produce a "superior" type of cattle in performance, vigor, or otherwise. And since this issue has been a pet peeve of mine for many years, I cannot resist jumping into the fray. (And maybe I should note that I have not read in detail all recently posted correspondence on this topic.) Much of the horn-polled mythology dates to the method that was used to create the Polled Hereford breed: "In the year 1900, at age 55, Warren Gammon, set his course to develop a purebred Polled Hereford. He began by writing to all 2500 members of the American Hereford Association, inquiring if they might have a hornless, registered Hereford. Out of 1500 replies, he located 14 purebred Herefords, born without horns; 4 bulls and 10 cows. A jubilant Gammon bought all but one cow; two cows proved barren, reducing the number of foundation cows to 7." And from the start Gammon was criticized for attempting to produce hornless Herefords, but he rebuked his critics with the contention that, "Horns are no more essential for cattle than they are for horses, hogs or sheep." (The above statements are from http://www.herefordamerica.com/history.htm - and I might add, that this site includes some statements about genetics that I consider to be incorrect.) The small gene pool used in the formation of the Polled Hereford breed resulted in Polled Herefords that were, in fact, inferior in performance to the horned Herefords at that time – and at a population level, this was true through probably the 1960's and maybe beyond. But over time, the American Polled Hereford Association used outcrossing combined with selection that resulted in the Polled Hereford breed becoming comparable to the horned Herefords in performance – as Joe Stookey has noted. And the initial and continuing controversy about horns was in part due to there being two separate breed associations; American Hereford Association (AHA) and American Polled Hereford Association (APHA) and they did not get along, especially during the early years of the APHA. There was very bad blood between them – and between individual cattlemen resulting in a least one fist fight at a Kansas City cattle show sometime in the 1960's, as I recall. Finally, in 1995 the AHA and the APHA were merged, with AHA now registering all Herefords with the polled individuals identified as such. (And I might add that in the late 1980's during the drafting of the first edition of the "Guide for the Use of Agricultural Animals Used in Teaching and Research" that I wanted to include a statement that would promote the use of polled bulls to eliminate the need to de-horn calves. But the beef committee – and others – felt that at that time that it might be too controversial to include such a statement. I am pleased that such a statement was included in the second edition.) And regarding vigor, I would again argue that there is no basis for contending that horned animals are somehow more vigorous than polled cattle. While the following is not based on actual research data - I grew up on a commercial beef farm that had straight-bred Hereford cattle. We had horned Herefords through about 1970 (heavily from the Domino line) and then we started using polled bulls (many of Justamere breeding – and Joe you may be aware that it was the Fox family near Lloydminster in Saskatchewan that developed this very influential line of cattle – and I think the family is still active in breeding cattle today). But what I wanted to say is that the only difference of any significance between when we used horned bulls and polled bulls was that we did not have to dehorn the calves! I might add that today my bother and nephew have a brood-cow group that is a synthetic of breeds including some Zebu, Angus, Norway Red, Beefmaster and Hereford breeding. And this is typical of commercial beef production today – with some form of outbreeding being common for most all commercial beef operations. And the breed associations are rapidly decreasing in importance – including fewer and fewer animals being registered. According to Field and Taylor (2007; Intro to Anim Sci), the AHA registered 419,000 cattle in 1975 and less than 69,000 in 2005. And following a major North American blizzard sometime around 1890 which killed off Shorthorn (the most common breed at that time), the hardiness of Hereford cattle was recognized and resulted in their dominating beef numbers in North America for decades. But the American Angus Association surpassed the AHA in number of cattle registered in 1995, and now greatly outnumbers all other breed associations with over 298,000 registrations in 2005 – mostly due to the word Angus now being a registered trademark in the USA and associated with a successful ad campaign. And the fact that Angus cattle are hornless additionally debunks the idea that the so-called horn gene is somehow linked to better performance in cattle. In fact - at the molecular level, the "polled gene" very well may be nothing more than a single point mutation possibly at the initiation site (5' end) of the DNA strand – that blocks mRNA from attaching to the DNA ; thus, completely preventing the expression of the code for horns. (And I must admit that this previous statement is based primarily on info dating back to an idea I presented in a term paper for a biophysics course in 1974 – and not on my having kept current with recent molecular research on the topic.) Nevertheless, it is highly improbable that the polled gene is somehow a complete deletion of a section of DNA all of which codes for the expression of a horn. In fact I know of anecdotal accounts where a horned calf has been produced within herds which are thought to be homozygous polled. And these horned animals do not have a whole new type of horn; rather it is a horn of the "wild type" common to Bos taurus cattle. If these anecdotal accounts indicate a back mutation, it would support the idea that a single point mutation (maybe nothing more than a change in only one nucleic acid) has occurred within the ATG initiation sequence common to all mammalian genes. And I checked with a colleague who is current in the developments of molecular genes, and he tells me there are a number of other possibilities for a mutation to occur of a very minor nature that could block the expression of the horn-DNA sequence – that is, the gene effect that we have come to call the "poll gene." (And I might add that it is theoretically possible for an epigenetic effect to exist that blocks expression of horns and also influences other traits – but there is simply no supporting correlation-type data to support such an effect as Joe has noted. However, Carol Petherick raises an interesting question regarding Bos indicus and the African horn type. I believe it could be that there are gene differences that do have implications beyond just the expression of horns in these cattle.) But bottom line – I believe the use of polled bulls should be promoted. And regarding the dairy industry, one could argue that most all these cattle are not dehorned but rather are de-budded by which I mean that for heifers, the horn bud is removed while the calf is still very young and before it attaches and becomes a horn (done by either a mechanical, chemical or burning technique in heifers; whereas, most every bull calf is not dehorned or de-budded and rather are sold before becoming old enough for significant horn development) – I would still argue that the industry should be working toward identifying high indexing polled bulls and then using them. And finally, a note regarding the initial posting having to do with the attack against the Pennsylvania State University research on calves and analgesics that initiated the Applied-Ethology discussion about horns, etc. The article that was posted stated that Robert Cohen was president of the Dairy Education Board – an organization which I had not heard about previously. The responses from GOOGLE I got seem to indicate that this organization may be basically a one-person operation with only one goal and that is to attack the dairy industry on all fronts. I suggest this might be true on the basis of info I saw at the following sites: http://www.bapd.org/gdaard-1.html http://www.notmilk.com/ Regards to all, Ray Stricklin -- Dr. John Comerford Associate Professor 324 Henning Bulding University Park, PA 16802 814-863-3661 814-865-7442 FAX Subject: Separation anxiety and boarding kennels From: Randi Helene Tillung Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:24:10 +0200 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca, Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca I run a large boarding kennel and hope that any of you can lead me to resources/studies on separation anxiety. I am looking for information about anxiety that is induced in a dog during a stay at a boarding kennel. We have never got any feedback from customers that their dogs have had an increase in separation anxiety after a stay. But we are aware that this is not an unknown problem as we run behaviour problem counselling and therefore I would like to know more about it. What factors are involved and how one can try to avoid the unfortunate to happen. Hope that you can help! Thank you, Randi Helene Tillung M.SC in canine ethology Subject: Re: Separation anxiety and boarding kennels From: Kayce Cover Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:27:10 -0400 (EDT) To: Randi Helene Tillung CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca We have a protocol that has been highly effective in teaching animals to cope with stressors and manage their emotions. I have sent links to free article in the past. We have been turning separation anxiety around in short order. Best wishes, Kayce Cover > > I run a large boarding kennel and hope that any of you can lead me to > > resources/studies on separation anxiety. I am looking for information > > about > > anxiety that is induced in a dog during a stay at a boarding kennel. > > > > We have never got any feedback from customers that their dogs have had > > an > > increase in separation anxiety after a stay. But we are aware that > > this is > > not an unknown problem as we run behaviour problem counselling and > > therefore > > I would like to know more about it. > > > > What factors are involved and how one can try to avoid the unfortunate > > to > > happen. Hope that you can help! > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > M.SC in canine ethology > > > > > > Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com Subject: Re: Separation anxiety and boarding kennels From: samb247@aol.com Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:55:18 -0400 To: randihelene@tillung.no, applied-ethology@usask.ca, Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca CC: samb247@aol.com Hi Randi, I am involved with animal rescue & fostering in southern Louisiana/Miss and what I have seen is a marked increase in CSA since Hurr Katrina. Our Adoption Contract says that animals must come back to us for any reason. I have been reading & trying to understand about CSA and Thunderphobia or Brontophobia because several of our returnees and NON adopted dogs have this issue. Any assistance anyone can render is greatly appreciated. Sam Bailey ps my wife & I stayed for the storm!! www.pontchartrainhumanesociety.org -----Original Message----- From: Randi Helene Tillung To: applied-ethology@usask.ca; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 5:24 am Subject: Separation anxiety and boarding kennels I run a large boarding kennel and hope that any of you can lead me to resources/studies on separation anxiety. I am looking for information about anxiety that is induced in a dog during a stay at a boarding kennel. We have never got any feedback from customers that their dogs have had an increase in separation anxiety after a stay. But we are aware that this is not an unknown problem as we run behaviour problem counselling and therefore I would like to know more about it. What factors are involved and how one can try to avoid the unfortunate to happen. Hope that you can help! Thank you, Randi Helene Tillung M.SC in canine ethology Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! Subject: gladiators sportsmen vicktiousness & bloodlettors ... the Samson Syndrome From: "E. Wayne Johnson" Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:13:02 -0500 To: applied-ethology network Some of you are going to wonder what this post is doing in this forum and some are going to "know for sure" that it doesnt belong here, but I think it strikes at the root of some of what we deal with in the relationship of man and beast, and could potentially stir up some interesting commentary and development. *** The Greek word Malakos ("soft") is perhaps one of the most offensive words in any language. But malakos is a word with an ancient and respectable history. The Apostle Paul used MALAKOI in I Corinthians 6.9 and Plato used it in the Republic. Malakoi is usually translated "effeminate" or "weakling". The negative connotation is clear. The implication is a man with feminine attributes, a "girlie-boy". We didn't know much Greek where I grew up but we were familiar with the concept. Words like "sissy" and "wuss" carried the general idea. I am not a much of a sports fan. I have no idea who played in the world series or the super bowl this year. There is no fundamental difference between a contest of humans coming at each other with lethal weapons of assault and the sort of assault associated with the relative positioning and progress of some sort of spherical object be it football, basketball, etc., fill in the blank ___ ball. But I am aware that athletic contests continue to capture the imagination of a significant portion of the populace everywhere. And it is the outstanding player, the "Hero" [Greek (H)EROS: defender, deliverer] that the sporting crowds cheer for and that the opposing teams begrudgingly respect, and it is the champion who is "remembered" in the varied annals of sports history. [Hebrew ZAKAR: "remembered" or "male" as contrasted to NEQEBAH "female".] * The thing that I find so interesting is that the very same characteristics that make one a hero deployed in the sports arena are the same characteristics extended that are deplored by the society, or at least by a portion of the society. Tyrus R. Cobb is arguably one of the greatest athletes who ever lived in any age. Ty Cobb is also remembered for his "surly temperament, allegedly severe racism, and aggressive reputation, which was...daring to the point of dementia". The society needs the redemption provided by the hero, but paradoxically finds him to be socially unacceptable. The hero becomes the Vick-tim. It's the same guy doing the same thing on and off the field. He says "What did I do?" because the society expects him to be a different guy than what he is. The society seems to want him to be both hero and eunuch. The same guy is tuned up to the max to be aggressive and defensive on the fiery field of contest and we expect him to immediately switch over to being a submissive choir boy, a model citizen. Samson judged and defended Israel in the power of the spirit but the extension of his strength in the flesh got him into all sorts of trouble. We see something akin to it in the Pete Roses, the Daryl Strawberrys, the Babe Ruths, the George S. Pattons and the Bobby Knights. I have not yet had the privilege of attending a dog fight for sport but I have seen a few spontaneous events and got bit badly once trying to break one up. The sport of dog fighting seems to have a venerable history indeed. I note a few idioms that were introduced into my vocabulary early in life: "I wouldn't take her to a dog fight" (said of a undesirable potential companion); and we "stayed until the last dog died" (we boringly remained even after most folks had gone home). Many of the popular breeds of dogs were developed for this obviously popular and just as obviously brutal sport. So, given that there is nothing Really Novel about dog fighting, and why should the society be so alarmed and offended by it now? And why don't we see the real roots of both sides of this matter? Wayne Subject: SV: Separation anxiety and boarding kennels From: Randi Helene Tillung Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:32:39 +0200 To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca I would love to see the protocol for inspiration :) We already do quite successfully treat sep anx in dogs (when owner is willing to follow the advice and protocols), but there is always more to learn! What I am especially looking for this time is not so much what do to after the onset, but more on how I could prevent it to happen in our kennel in the first place. There is a chance that we might not notice the problem in the kennel anyway, partly because of the presence of other dogs. It would be the owner who was left with the problem on returning home. I would think there could be several factors that can be considered: The age of the dog The breed of the dog The gender Earlier experiences when dog is left alone The procedures at the kennel when owner is delivering the dog The procedure when the dog first enters its own kennel Handling during the stay (i.e if something uncomfortable needs to be done with the dog - where does it happen - in the kennel or in a separate room) Handlers scaring dog during stay (intentionally or unintentionally) Facilities (environment in kennel - smells, furniture, sight, presence of other dog ++) The dogs history (rehomed before; has shown symptoms after family vacation +++) Owners' first reactions to a dog's different behaviour Etc What would be very helpful is that we could ask some control questions to owners, especially when they want to leave puppies. If we knew that "this dog is at risk", we could turn them down and advise them to find a different solution. Or we could introduce even more special procedures at the kennel. Or rest assured that what we do has an effect. Thank you for any advice, Randi Helene Tillung M.Sc in Canine Ethology -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: Kayce Cover [mailto:kc@synalia.com] Sendt: 30. august 2007 13:27 Til: Randi Helene Tillung Kopi: applied-ethology@usask.ca Emne: Re: Separation anxiety and boarding kennels We have a protocol that has been highly effective in teaching animals to cope with stressors and manage their emotions. I have sent links to free article in the past. We have been turning separation anxiety around in short order. Best wishes, Kayce Cover > > I run a large boarding kennel and hope that any of you can lead me to > > resources/studies on separation anxiety. I am looking for information > > about > > anxiety that is induced in a dog during a stay at a boarding kennel. > > > > We have never got any feedback from customers that their dogs have had > > an > > increase in separation anxiety after a stay. But we are aware that > > this is > > not an unknown problem as we run behaviour problem counselling and > > therefore > > I would like to know more about it. > > > > What factors are involved and how one can try to avoid the unfortunate > > to > > happen. Hope that you can help! > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > M.SC in canine ethology > > > > > > Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com Subject: Re: Separation anxiety and boarding kennels From: Zen Trainer Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:03:07 -0500 To: Ethics List I wonder if something as simple as using Comfort Zone Plug In's (Dog Appeasing Pheromones) would do the trick? I use that when I know a dog will have a problem - when the owner has reported that the dog will. It's expensive so I don't use it all the time. Some vets do though, in their exam rooms. Rescue Remedy is in the water of all animals staying here, unless they are all so comfortable they think they live here. I do in home, cage free boarding so it's a bit different from a kennel. I have also used all forms of valium. Valerian Root (herbal valium), Calm's Forte (homeopathic valium) and the real stuff- diazepam. At vet clinics I have worked at we have used lavender or cedar aromatherapy (usually oil in a lamp ring) to calm dogs, as well as playing soothing music. I know that there are studies on music in kennels, I am willing to bet there are on DAP, the rest is just my anecdotal experience. I've been boarding for over 10 years now. Tracy B Ann www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" www.radiofreenashville.org What I am especially looking for this time is not so much what do to after the onset, but more on how I could prevent it to happen in our kennel in the first place. Randi Helene Tillung M.Sc in Canine Ethology Subject: Re: Separation anxiety and boarding kennels From: Zen Trainer Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:05:53 -0500 To: Ethics List Would you be willing to send the links and protocol again? I'd like to see them. Thanks! Tracy B Ann www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" www.radiofreenashville.org We have a protocol that has been highly effective in teaching animals to cope with stressors and manage their emotions. I have sent links to free article in the past. We have been turning separation anxiety around in short order. Best wishes, Kayce Cover Subject: Re: Separation anxiety and boarding kennels From: Christina Le Breton Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:18:48 -0400 To: Randi Helene Tillung CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca, Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca May I also have the info please? Thanks! Christina Le Breton On 8/30/07, Randi Helene Tillung wrote: I run a large boarding kennel and hope that any of you can lead me to resources/studies on separation anxiety. I am looking for information about anxiety that is induced in a dog during a stay at a boarding kennel. We have never got any feedback from customers that their dogs have had an increase in separation anxiety after a stay. But we are aware that this is not an unknown problem as we run behaviour problem counselling and therefore I would like to know more about it. What factors are involved and how one can try to avoid the unfortunate to happen. Hope that you can help! Thank you, Randi Helene Tillung M.SC in canine ethology Subject: Re: Separation anxiety and boarding kennels From: Christina Le Breton Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:18:48 -0400 To: Randi Helene Tillung CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca, Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca May I also have the info please? Thanks! Christina Le Breton On 8/30/07, Randi Helene Tillung wrote: I run a large boarding kennel and hope that any of you can lead me to resources/studies on separation anxiety. I am looking for information about anxiety that is induced in a dog during a stay at a boarding kennel. We have never got any feedback from customers that their dogs have had an increase in separation anxiety after a stay. But we are aware that this is not an unknown problem as we run behaviour problem counselling and therefore I would like to know more about it. What factors are involved and how one can try to avoid the unfortunate to happen. Hope that you can help! Thank you, Randi Helene Tillung M.SC in canine ethology Subject: Re: SV: Separation anxiety and boarding kennels From: Kayce Cover Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:38:36 -0400 (EDT) To: Randi Helene Tillung CC: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca, applied-ethology@usask.ca Here is the link. I am on travel right now. When I return, I will try to get some video up of cases, before and after. The results I am reporting are with no use of medication and most make significant improvement in one day - even tail chasers. There is a bit of video up on my website, but not on this specific subject - however, "Star" is a pretty dramatic case of resolved aggression toward health care. (http://www.synalia.com) http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/bridgeandtarget2/files/basic%20training/Perception%20Modification/ As far as preventing the problem, the model we use is that the animals are becoming addicted to excitatory neurotransmitters, and we can solve problems related to this by teaching the animal to self-medicate/self-apply calming neurotransmitters - like serotonin and GABA. We teach conditioned relaxation to the kennelled dogs and then ask them to apply that, before we come into the area, for example. I find that histories, while interesting, are not critical for solving the problem. All dogs are at risk, but herding breeds and terriers and working dogs are what we see most of. However, by setting them up with some skills they can steer clear of the problem, or escape it if they have developed a problem. This process has been tremendously successful with exotic animals as well. Best, Kayce Kayce Cover, MS Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com > > I would love to see the protocol for inspiration :) We already do > > quite > > successfully treat sep anx in dogs (when owner is willing to follow > > the > > advice and protocols), but there is always more to learn! > > > > What I am especially looking for this time is not so much what do to > > after > > the onset, but more on how I could prevent it to happen in our kennel > > in the > > first place. > > > > There is a chance that we might not notice the problem in the kennel > > anyway, > > partly because of the presence of other dogs. It would be the owner > > who was > > left with the problem on returning home. > > > > I would think there could be several factors that can be considered: > > > > The age of the dog > > The breed of the dog > > The gender > > Earlier experiences when dog is left alone > > The procedures at the kennel when owner is delivering the dog > > The procedure when the dog first enters its own kennel > > Handling during the stay (i.e if something uncomfortable needs to be > > done > > with the dog - where does it happen - in the kennel or in a separate > > room) > > Handlers scaring dog during stay (intentionally or unintentionally) > > Facilities (environment in kennel - smells, furniture, sight, presence > > of > > other dog ++) > > The dogs history (rehomed before; has shown symptoms after family > > vacation > > +++) > > Owners' first reactions to a dog's different behaviour > > Etc > > > > What would be very helpful is that we could ask some control questions > > to > > owners, especially when they want to leave puppies. If we knew that > > "this > > dog is at risk", we could turn them down and advise them to find a > > different > > solution. Or we could introduce even more special procedures at the > > kennel. > > Or rest assured that what we do has an effect. > > > > Thank you for any advice, > > > > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > M.Sc in Canine Ethology > > > > > > > > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > > Fra: Kayce Cover [mailto:kc@synalia.com] > > Sendt: 30. august 2007 13:27 > > Til: Randi Helene Tillung > > Kopi: applied-ethology@usask.ca > > Emne: Re: Separation anxiety and boarding kennels > > > > We have a protocol that has been highly effective in teaching animals > > to cope with stressors and manage their emotions. I have sent links > > to free article in the past. We have been turning separation anxiety > > around in short order. > > > > Best wishes, > > Kayce Cover > > > > >> >> I run a large boarding kennel and hope that any of you can lead me >> >> to >> >> resources/studies on separation anxiety. I am looking for >> >> information >> >> about >> >> anxiety that is induced in a dog during a stay at a boarding kennel. >> >> >> >> We have never got any feedback from customers that their dogs have >> >> had >> >> an >> >> increase in separation anxiety after a stay. But we are aware that >> >> this is >> >> not an unknown problem as we run behaviour problem counselling and >> >> therefore >> >> I would like to know more about it. >> >> >> >> What factors are involved and how one can try to avoid the >> >> unfortunate >> >> to >> >> happen. Hope that you can help! >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> >> >> >> Randi Helene Tillung >> >> M.SC in canine ethology