Dear Kathy Morgan and all interested, Regarding circadian rhythms of corticosteroids I think the following would be of interest: Dallman et al in J.H.Clark (ed.) Recent Progress in Hormone Research (Vol. 43) , 1987, Academic Press, Orlando, pp.113-173. Endršczi, E. (1972) Limbic system learning and pituitary adrenal function. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest Johnson and Levine in Neuroendocrinology, 11, 268-273, 1973 Krieger in Endocrinology, 95, 1195-1201, 1974. Best wishes, Frederick Toates ============================================================================== From: IN%"APN6MAV@SOUTH-01.NOVELL.LEEDS.ac.uk" "VARLEY M.A." 1-FEB-1995 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: BIG RED JUICY STEAKS WELL DONE Dear Birte and All I have just seen Jeff's analysis of the letter submitted and published in the Aberdeen Press and Journal (I remember the P&J from 6 years living in the frozen North !). I agee with Jeff's analysis that most of consists of very subjective value statements. To answer your end question on the extent of these views, surveys carried out by the MLC's marketing group indicate that about 95-97% of people may hold some of the views which are expressed by the farmer. In relation to the desire to continue eating meat, this is what the Unites Kingdom population wish to do. With regards to the farmer's opinions about the worth of animals in the scheme of things, my guess is that there will be a divergence of opinion in the population at large. The farming community may well take the view that their families and businesses come first but they are only about 1.4% of UK voters and are way out on a limb (leg of lamb!). Having said that, I believe that a large proportion of farmers express varying levels of empathy with their animals and also recognize the relationships between humans and animals which may influence the bilogy (and the performance) of the animals. Coming from a family farm as I do, I expect to continue eating and enjoying meat as a nutritional package but at the same time I demand the highest standards possible in the methods used for raising these animals. I tend to hold John Webster's view on the use of animals and as long as the; housing, nutrition, management, health care and ultimate slaughter are compatable with high welfare standards then I have no problem with controlling the transition from life to death for groups of animals and eating them. I would defend any individuals right to be a vegetarian and expect others to respect the views of the meat eating majority. Enjoy your steaks or veggy burgers or whatever turns you on ! Mike Varley Dr Mike Varley Animal Physiology and Nutrition University of Leeds, Leeds, England Tel Int + 44 532 333062 Fax Int + 44 532 333072 Fax/Teleph. Home Int + 44 937 845541 Mobile 0860 102531 e-mail apn6mav@leeds.ac.uk =============================================================================== From: IN%"pdkaio@PObox.ruu.nl" "Heleen van de Weerd" 1-FEB-1995 10:36:29.62 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fw: Re: Corticosterone in mice ------------------------------ From: "I. Rochlitz" Wed, 1 Feb 1995 12:48:32 +0000 (GMT) To: Heleen van de Weerd Subject: Re: Corticosterone in mice On Tue, 31 Jan 1995, Heleen van de Weerd wrote: > Hello, > > Referring to the discussion about cortisol and corticosterone, I would like > to ask the following questions: > > Does anybody know if it is possible to assess corticosterone levels in urine > of mice? And how long does it take when a mouse is stressed for the increased > corticosterone levels to appear in the urine? Perhaps this is known of > other animals? > > Heleen van de Weerd > ~ Department of Laboratory Animal Science ~ > ~ Utrecht University () () ~ > ~ P.O.Box 80.166, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands 0 0 ~ > ~ Phone: ++31 30 532033, Telefax: ++31 30 537997 =o= ~ > ~ Replacement, Reduction & Refinement of Animal Experiments ~ > I do not know about the research in mice, but there are studies in cats regarding stress and changes in urinary cortisol. They are : Carlstead K. et al(1993) Behavioural and physiological correlates of stress in laboratory cats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38, 143-158 and Carlstead et al (19920 Urinary Monitoring of adrenal responses to psychological stressors in domestic and nondomestic felids Zoo Biology 11, 165-176. If you get any information on urinary corticosterone and mice, I would be grateful if you could let me know. I am studying stress in domestic cats, using changes in urinary cortisol as a useful indicator Thank you.. ============================================================================== From: IN%"GrahamS@ucscarb.ac.uk" "Graham Scott" 1-FEB-1995 14:34:56.19 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'ethologists'" CC: Subj: Hello, My name is Graham Scott, I'm an ethologist and marine biologist based at University College Scarborough UK. e-mail grahams@ucscarb.ac.uk. Can any of you out there provide references relevant to the area of the welfare of marine fish held in public auaria? Or do any of you know how to non-invasively measure stress in captive fish? I'm neither a vegitarian nor an Aberdonian! ============================================================================= From: IN%"aataylor@uoguelph.ca" "Allison A Taylor" 1-FEB-1995 15:00:23.65 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology List" CC: Subj: Reply to Jeff ... and bivalve question I am working on my reply to Jeff's challenge about testing philosophical hypotheses ... but want to do a little more thinking about it before I put fingers to keyboard. I *will* take up the challenge, however! In the meantime, has anyone out there worked with bivalves? I would greatly appreciate such a person getting in touch with me off-list - I'm involved in a research project that includes scallops, and am "out of my depth" so to speak! Allison Allison Taylor aataylor@uoguelph.ca ============================================================================== "Not conversing," said Eeyore. "Not first one and then the other. You said 'Hallo' and Flashed Past. I saw your tail in the distance as I was meditating my reply. I -had- thought of saying 'What?' - but, of course, it was then too late." A.A. Milne ============================================================================== From: IN%"Per.Jensen@hhyg.slu.se" 2-FEB-1995 06:05:21.79 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Transgenic animals Dear all, I'm very interested in getting updated on the issue of WELFARE OF TRANSGENIC ANIMALS (mainly farm animals). I would like both general opinions on the matter as well as relevant references. I suppose I'm not particularly interested in the issue of whether or not we should use DNA-manipulation in order to modify animals, but rather what specific ethical considerations this method evokes compared to traditional selective breeding. Is there any reason for special ethical rules with regard to gene-manipulated animals? The only immediate reason I could see for this is the speed by which changes can be induced. Are there other reasons? Which are the most crucial welfare considerations in this respect? I'm most interested in specific animal welfare issues, not possible effects on human welfare or environmental disturbances, although such things may be relevant as well. I understand that the problem of transgenic animals includes concerns about the direct modification of the genome of an animal, as well as the treatment of non-manipulated animals with substances produced through gene-manipulation of other organisms. Are there different welfare aspects on these two things? Is it wise at all to include both under the same heading? I would appreciate any comments, and in particular relevant references. Best wishes to you all, Per Jensen Skara, Sweden ============================================================================= From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.edinburgh.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 2-FEB-1995 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: transgenics Dear Per and others I am involved in a working group on the ethics of genetic engineering, so I would appreciate receiving comments as well, rather than people just replying to Per. Of course if they are posted on the net that will be fine. We are at an early stage, but I have written a preliminary article with some references which I shall post tomorrow. What follows is an outline for further consideration of the issues. Mike Appleby Potential effects of genetic engineering on animal welfare Introduction In developed countries there is legislation to safeguard animal welfare, but some people consider that this is insufficient, particularly in view of ever-increasing commercial pressures to exploit animals and of the increasing diversity of processes which can be used in that exploitation. Groups which consider and publicise these issues include independent scientists, welfare charities and churches. Some applications of genetic modification will in fact have relatively little effect on animal welfare. Others have the potential for improving some aspects of welfare. Some, however, have deleterious effects; some of these problems may decrease as processes are refined from the experimental stage to the stage of exploitation, but others may increase as processes are used on a larger scale. Categories of animal Farm animals used for agricultural products Farm animals used for biomedical products Laboratory animals Pests ('genetic myxamatosis'?) Companion animals Sporting animals (notably race horses) Wild animals (disease resistance?) Zoo animals Effects of techniques The techniques themselves may cause welfare problems associated with handling, surgery or both. These will include problems for animals on which the techniques are unsuccessful. It is obviously important to establish whether it will be necessary to continue to use techniques or whether once genetically modified lines are established they can breed true. For some applications effects of techniques may be the most important effects on welfare. Direct effects of genetic modification a) Some appear to have no implications for welfare b) Planned effects on welfare Positive, such as increased disease resistance. However, this does not look as likely a development as previously thought because in almost all cases it would produce massive selection pressure on the disease organisms to change Negative c) Effects of other changes, such as increased production d) Side effects Indirect effects a) Animals may be kept or treated in ways which have other implications for welfare e.g. disease resistant animals might be kept at high stocking density, whereas valuable transgenics might be particularly well looked after. Numbers of animals kept for different uses will also change (either increase or decrease). b) Changing attitudes may affect treatment of other animals. Control and legislation Properly constituted procedures are necessary to assess the likely impact of genetic modification on animal welfare and to take this into account in licensing specific processes or witholding licenses. Driving force Who pays? Who benefits? Changes to farming practice do not lead to increased profits for farmers because price competition continually and unevenly pares these to the minimum. If the major driving force is commercial exploitation of technology this is important here because of the complex interaction of economics and welfare. Because of this interaction, there are few potential applications unquivocally beneficial to both animals and humans. There is cause for concern that without rigorous control improvements to animal welfare will be outweighed by disadvantages. ============================================================================= From: IN%"SARAH.KEER-KEER@afrc.ac.uk" "KEERKEER" 2-FEB-1995 07:14:09.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" CC: Subj: vegetarianism Edited letter to Moira I am an ethologist working on battery chickens.... ....The letter in the Aberdeen Journal was quite disturbing, but on no account a new point of view, I have come across an awful lot of people taking my vegetarianism ( which on the whole I keep to myself, unless someone asks specifically) as a personal affront to their meat eating. At first I put it down to a predujice like any other, but it occurred to me later that there are many types of prejudice. Race seems to bring out one sort of bigotry, one that is thankfully rare among most biologists I have met and worked with. But race, in the biological sense, is passive (nobody chooses their colour) , and people seem to find this much easier to accept than people who *choose* to be something, a vegetarian, tee-total, fox-hunter, smoker, non-smoker, born-again christian etc. Alot of meat-eaters seem to be convinced that I am trying to convert them to vegetarianism, I imagine this to stem from an existentialist belief that if you really believe in something you will want other people to believe it too. I will grudgingly admit that I would like it if more people became vegetarian, but on no account would I try and convert someone, and consider the allegation of vegetarians 'brainwashing' society to be essentially paranoid. The letter said: `Surely this is another example of the brainwashing of society by ill-advised, fanatical vegetarians.' And Jeff in his analyis said: ***This is probably a statement of fact, but it is difficult to say whether it is true. How many vegetarians became vegetarian through rational consideration of all the arguements for and against? How many became vegetarian through peer pressure, because it was fashionable, without understanding all the relevent arguements? These statements I find almost offensive. Is this really 'probably a statement of fact', or is it another value statement? Does Jeff really consider it 'probable' that vegetarians are brainwashing society? As to why people become vegetarians (although I'm not sure how this became relevant), I wouldn't deny that vegetarians are affected by the culture they live in, and that 'fashion' is a large part of this culture, but this applies to meat-eating too. I think if he looked with an open mind he would find that many vegetarians have rationally considered the arguements for and against, I know I do almost every time I smell the lovely aroma of a joint roasting or bacon frying. But does rational consideration of all the arguements make a choice more *valid* somehow? *Choice* will always be based on how we *value* arguements, apparently the Hare Krishna consider the way herbivours and carnivours sweat to be crucial to their decision to become vegetarian, AND they probably meet most peoples definition of 'brain-washed', but does this mean I should de-value their choice? As scientists we tend to think that our chioces (based on logical and systematic consideration of all arguements within the scientific paradigm) are somehow better than those made by people who use another system to choose, but are they? We may be just as brainwashed as the Hare Krishna, I am often struck by how science becomes a belief system so similar to a religion. Back to the letter, to show I have a sence of humour, I find this statement quite amusing: ` I like my steaks. I will continue to enjoy them - rare - and so will my family, regardless of what these people tell me to do." I found out recently that some meat eaters think that vegetarians are scared of meat that blood is one of the aspects they are most scared of, and that if you eat your steak rare you are somehow 'stronger' . An interesting point of view, I wonder what Frued would have to say. Jeff replies to the above statement: ***This is a value statement in which he indicates that he is not going to be pushed around--- and good for him! In summary I think Jeff's ananlysis of the letter would have been stregthened if he had not made his own value statements about the value statements, but as Allison Taylor points out it is a myth that science is a value-free process and Jeff's analysis seem, to me (!), to illlustrate this well. Sarah Keer-Keer E-mail: Sarah.Keer-Keer@afrc.ac.uk ============================================================================== From: IN%"serpell@pobox.upenn.edu" 2-FEB-1995 09:08:37.50 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Exhibition in London Those of you passing through London between now and March 25 may wish to visit an exhibition entitled: "Animal Doctor, Birds and Beasts in Medical History" at the Wellcome Trust, Wellcome Building (where ever that is), London. I haven't been but it sounds interesting. Essentially a history of Vet. Med. but also plotting changes in public attitudes to farm, companion, and exotic animals, and their welfare. Would love to hear more about it, if anyone has already been to see it. James Serpell ============================================================================== From: IN%"VUZV1@earn.cvut.cz" "Marek Spinka" 2-FEB-1995 09:53:09.94 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: Cortisol and mood Dear all, Being very poor in endocrinology, I would appreciate if anybody could give me answer to the following questions, and, if possible, add some referrences. Do glucocorticoids have an effect on human mood? If you would, in a volunteer, artificially rise the cortisol level in blood, will she/he preceive subjective strain, stress, arousal, or anything like that? By analogy, if we record elevated levels of cortisol in an animal, could we assume that it FEELS stressed? excited? depressed? Best regards, Marek Spinka ============================================================================== From: IN%"VUZV1@earn.cvut.cz" "Marek Spinka" 2-FEB-1995 09:55:08.55 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: Introduction Hello all, I am Marek Spinka, working in the Research Institute of Animal Production in Prague, Czechia. Currently, my main research interest is nursing and suckling behaviour in pigs, and in other mammals kept by man. I am especially interested in how domestication and housing conditions mould these behaviours. I am also trying to get some insight into the motivational and time structure of nursing interactions. On the practical side, my efforts are to support group-housing systems for farrowing and lactating sows in Czechia, based on experience from abroad, especially from Sweden, and on own behavioural observations in such systems. Many regards, Marek Spinka Group of Ethology Research Institute of Animal Production CZ - 104 00 Prague Uhrineves Czechia Phone: +42 2 750 387 Fax: +42 2 750 690 E-mail: vuzv1@earn.cvut.cz ============================================================================== From: IN%"pdkaio@PObox.ruu.nl" "Heleen van de Weerd" 2-FEB-1995 09:59:29.01 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fw: Cortisol in urine From: "Lund, Anders {ZI}" Thu, 02 Feb 95 10:22:00 DST To: Heleen van de Weerd Subject: Cortisol in urine Dear Heleen! I do not know about mice urine, but our department has used an Amerlite cortisol assay provided by Kodak Clinical Diagnostics (Amersham) for several animals, mainly mink and foxes. Both plasma and urine can be used and I am shure any samples will work. As far as I know only very small samples are necessary. One recent publication is; Long-term effects of different handling procedures on behavioural, physiological and production-related parameters in silver foxes. Vivi Pedersen, 1994. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 40 pp. 285-296. Yours Anders Lund %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Anders Lund e-mail: ALund@ZI.KU.DK Zoological Institute Phone: (45) 35321306 Dept. of Population Biology Fax: (45) 35321299 Universitetsparken 15 GSM: (45) 40145060 DK-2100 Copenhagen Phone, priv: (45) 31577678 DENMARK ============================================================================= From: IN%"esa017@ed.sac.ac.uk" "MIKE MENDL" 2-FEB-1995 13:34:48.60 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"esa017@ed.sac.ac.uk" Subj: cortisol dribble Dear All, As Adroaldo Zanella's coworker, I have to plead guilty to having helped collect enough pig saliva to fill two chest freezers. Some of our work has involved simultaneous saliva and plasma collection in order to try and examine the temporal relationship between the two. Our general findings are that the measures of salivary cortisol seem to be more variable than those of free and total plasma cortisol. For example, during an ACTH challenge, plasma cortisol levels rise in a smoother manner than salivary cortisol. Reasons for this include problems with collection of individual samples (Adroaldo mentioned his work on collection techiques), and also the dynamics of cortisol movement from plasma to saliva which both Marko Ruis and Adroaldo mention. I think there is room for a lot more work in these areas, not just in order to provide further validation of salivary cortisol, but also to understand more about the free/total relationship (for instance, correlations between plasma total and plasma free cortisol appear to become disrupted during ACTH challenges- I am sure that individual levels of cortisol binding protein (cf Marko) play an important role here). As for the issue of correlations, there seem to be two main ways in which these can be made. Correlations can be made within-individuals. In otherwords, levels of salivary and plasma cortisol collected simulataneously at several time points from the same individual can be correlated. This often seems to be the main form of validation in human studies (e.g. Walker et al. 1984, in Immunoassays of Steroids in Saliva (Ed: Read, G.F., Riad-Fahmy, D., Walker, R.F. & Griffiths, K.), Cardiff: Alpha Omega Publishing Ltd) and usually produces a nice straight line. In pigs, the line is not so straight, but it is reasonable. Alternatively, correlations can be made between individuals (e.g. do individuals with higher plasma cortisol at sampling point A also have higher salivary cortisol at sampling point A?). I have seen very few examples of these correlations for any species. In our pigs, these correlations seem to be less clear cut, although when a mean value is taken for each pig over several sampling points, the correlations are better. Some people combine the two correlational approaches. For example, they may measure the plasma and salivary cortisol of 6 individuals at 6 different time points, and then place all 36 points into one correlation. This seems to me to be a rather confusing approach which fails to identify whether, for example, cross-time changes in all individuals (e.g. due to circadian rhythms, ACTH challenges etc.) or differences between individuals are mainly responsible for the correlation. I think that this simple methodological issue of how to validate these measures is itself important (if horrendously boring) and would be interested to hear anyone else's experiences/views. In general, though, I also remain "fond of saliva as a body fluid". It has enormous potential as a "non- invasive" and easy to use (e.g. on farm) technique. Mike Mendl ============================================================================== From: IN%"JSWANSON@oz.oznet.ksu.edu" "JANICE SWANSON" 2-FEB-1995 14:17:23.77 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Poultry Judging & Toe-clipping rodents Dear Network Friends, I am in the middle of two local controversies that I would welcome comment or suggestions on. The first involves the judging of broiler chickens. For those of you unfamiliar with such activities I will attempt to give you a brief summary. We have youth and college teams that test their skills at visually appraising livestock and poultry. Our extension specialist in poultry has great concerns about the negative effect excessive handling has on the broilers that are judged (they may be handled by as many as 50-100 persons during the contest). He has come to this conclusion by having actually observed the condition of these birds after such a contest, and has recommended that the birds not be handled. Of course this very much goes against tradition. Visual appraisal of the birds usually involves picking them up, feeling various muscles and examining the shanks, etc. of the bird. He is being challenged to come up with a way for the contestants to appraise the birds without handling. The broilers tend to sit down so examination of the legs is impossible without forcing them to rise or picking them up. They are caged separately during the contest. Also, I am seeking information on alternatives to toe-clipping wild rodents (particularly mice) for the purpose of identification. Outside of microchip technology are there any other methods that would not seriously alter the animals appearance? I would greatly appreciate any ideas or information on either of these subjects. Thanks. Janice Swanson jswanson@oz.oznet.ksu.edu ============================================================================== From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 2-FEB-1995 16:35:09.78 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: transgenic references A few references: T. Grandin in L. O. Fiems, B. G. Cottyn, D. I. Demeyer (Eds) Animal Biotechnology and the Quality of Meat Production. Elsevier 1991 pages 145-157. S. Newman. Journal of Animal Science 1994 72:1641-1653 (talks about domestication as well as genetic manipulations) Livestock Production Science 1993 vol. 36 - several articles Jeff Rushen (Mr.) ============================================================================== From: IN%"itpan@mlucom2.urz.uni-halle.de" "Prof. von Borell" 3-FEB-1995 To: IN%"VUZV1@earn.cvut.cz" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: cortisol and mood > > > Dear all, > > Being very poor in endocrinology, I would appreciate if anybody > could give me answer to the following questions, and, if > possible, add some referrences. > > Do glucocorticoids have an effect on human mood? If you would, > in a volunteer, artificially rise the cortisol level in blood, > will she/he preceive subjective strain, stress, arousal, or > anything like that? By analogy, if we record elevated levels of > cortisol in an animal, could we assume that it FEELS stressed? > excited? depressed? > > Best regards, > > Marek Spinka > Dear Marek, As far as I know glucocorticoids would not impact mood at least after acute iv injections. There are reports, however, from volonteers that were injected with catecholamines. At higher dosages they would feel sympathetic activation with increases blood pressure, heat production, red flushing (face), increased heart rate and generally becoming aroused. In the case of glucocorticoids it is known that hypercortisolism is a consistentfeature of depression and melancholia. In psychiatry, the so called dexamethasone suppression test has become a standard for diagnosis. DXM would normally suppress the pituitary-adrenocortical axis for a prolonged time (USING a specific dosage). Patients with major depressive disorder would have a breakthrough in cortisol at an earlier stage than controls. There is some evidence now around that endogenous CRH plays a major part in the feelings associated with stress/depression. For example Johnson et al., 1992 (neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 16, 115) reported that hypercortisolism in major depression reflects a defect at or above the hypothalamus resulting in the hypersecretion of endogenuous CRH. Post dexamethasone cortisol levels in major depression correlate positively with central CRH levels. CRH also activates the sympathetic system by the way. The "mood effects" of central CRH are known and well described. We recently published on that subject from work with pigs (Johnson et al. Endocrinology 135,642-648, 1994). For more references, please contact me. Eberhard von Borell (Ebby). ============================================================================== From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.edinburgh.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 3-FEB-1995 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: transgenics Via: uk.ac.edinburgh.castle; Fri, 3 Feb 1995 09:21:41 +0000 Here is the article I mentioned yesterday, with a few references. Mike Potential effects of breeding technologies on farm animal welfare Emerging breeding technologies have the potential for improving some aspects of animal welfare. However, there is cause for concern that improvements will be outweighed by disadvantages unless legislation is put in place to prevent this. Techniques Selective breeding for production characteristics is improving some aspects of welfare for some species (for example disease resistance) but is having major deleterious effects on others. Examples of the latter are the physical problems associated with rapid growth in broilers and turkeys, the hunger and frustration of feeding behaviour caused by food restriction of broiler parents and sows and the calving difficulties of double-muscled cattle. The majority of other techniques considered here will have similar effects to those of selective breeding and concern is primarily caused by the fact that these effects may be more rapid and intense than hitherto. Genetic modification must be considered separately, however, because it has vastly more potential than other techniques for producing sudden change in characteristics relevant to welfare. Thus the 'Beltsville transgenic pig' with enhanced Growth Hormone production had severe arthritis - an immediate, unforeseen side-effect (Pursel et al., 1989). It is also sometimes suggested that welfare problems may result from restriction of normal breeding behaviour. The techniques themselves may also cause welfare problems associated with handling, surgery or both. These will include problems for animals on which the techniques are unsuccessful. More attention should be given to such problems (Appleby, 1995) especially if techniques are to become routine, as has happened with artificial insemination in some species. One particularly promising finding, with potential to reduce the ill-effects of forcible restraint, is that pigs and sheep can be trained to enter a restraining device for procedures including blood withdrawal voluntarily and repeatedly (Grandin 1986, 1989). Effects The potential effects of breeding technologies on farm animal welfare can be categorised as follows. a) Planned improvements: these include improvements in disease resistance, prevention, diagnosis and treatment (Robinson and McEvoy, 1993). They could potentially include measures to reduce or prevent other, specific welfare problems such as leg disorders in turkeys. However, the only improvements to welfare which will be implemented on a voluntary basis are those which are profitable. b) Direct effects of changes in production characteristics: as indicated above these are likely to be similar to those caused by selective breeding but more extreme. They might include, for example, extension of the already prolonged energy deficit in high-yielding dairy cows by modification for increased milk production, and increased leg problems in broilers by further modification for rapid growth. c) Side effects: a recent report stated that 'In many instances, the site and time of expression of the transferred genes still lack the degree of specificity required and lead to deleterious side effects.' For example, Growth Hormone gene insertion has 'numerous unacceptable side effects, e.g. arthritis, peptic ulcers, degenerative kidney disease and infertility' (Robinson and McEvoy, 1993). Legislation Many of these concerns are addressed by current legislation and welfare codes, but unsuccessfully. For example, at the recent European Symposium on Poultry Welfare (Savory and Hughes, 1993) it was concluded that 'The growth rate of broilers and the concomitant food restriction of broiler breeders cause major welfare problems. ... These problems are getting worse with the continuing, intensive genetic selection for growth rate. ... Urgent consideration should be given to legislation against further selection for growth rate until or unless associated problems are solved' (Appleby et al., 1994). The inadequacy of current legislation is likely to be worse with the potentially more rapid or unforeseen effects of other breeding technologies. For adequate control of such technologies, positive legislation is necessary which specifies what is permitted rather than what is not. This is particularly necessary for procedures involving genetic modification. To obtain such permission, the proponents of a procedure should have to demonstrate one of two cases. First, the procedure may have no deleterious effects on animal welfare. Alternatively, benefits to humans may outweigh deleterious effects to animals (Mepham, 1993). Arguments for the latter case must be assessed by a properly constituted process such as that used by the Home Office for licensing animal operations. Without such rigorous control, emerging breeding technologies are likely to cause more disadvantages than advantages for animal welfare. References Appleby, M.C. 1995. Farm animals (mammals). In: Environmental Enrichment for Laboratory Animals other than Primates. Animal Welfare Information Center, United States Department of Agriculture. Appleby, M.C., Hughes, B.O. and Savory, C.J. 1994. The current state of poultry welfare: progress, problems and strategies. British Poultry Science 35, 467-475. Grandin, T. 1986. Minimizing stress in pig handling. Lab Animal 15: 1-5. Grandin, T. 1989. Voluntary acceptance of restraint by sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 257-261. Mepham, T.B. 1993. Approaches to the ethical evaluation of animal biotechnologies. Animal Production 57: 353-359. Pursel, V.G., Pinkert, C.A., Miller, K.F., Bolt, D.J., Campbell, R.G., Palmiter, R.D., Brinster, R.L. and Hammer, R.E. 1989. Genetic engineering of livestock. Science 244: 1281-1288. Robinson, J.J. and McEvoy, T.G. 1993. Biotechnology - the possibilities. Animal Production 57: 335-352. Savory, C.J. and Hughes, B.O. 1993. Proceedings of the Fourth European Symposium on Poultry Welfare. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Potters Bar. ============================================================================= From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.edinburgh.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 3-FEB-1995 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: toe clipping There was an article by Trevor Poole on alternatives to toe clipping in the ASAB newsletter two or three issues ago. Mike ============================================================================= From: IN%"D.B.MORTON@BHAM.ac.uk" 3-FEB-1995 03:42:56.40 To: IN%"per.jensen@hhyg.slu.se", IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.edinburgh.ac.uk", CC: Subj: Transgenic animal welfare Dear Per and Mike, Interesting topics and problems which have already been aired to some extent on rat-talk recently. You might like to contact the BUAV for their submission (as part of the European Green Group) to the European Patent Office on the Oncomouse. Their objection to such animals was deontological (ie. on the principle of breeding animal suffering which was inherently wrong). The EPO has refused patents for other TGs on the basis of offending public morality, or words to that effect, ie. similar to the 4th hurdle objection in registration of medicines jargon (eg. BST) The Hasting Center (NY) in a supplement last year (or maybe 1993) produced an interesting article looking at some of the pros and cons.of TG animals - I can find the exact reference if you want it, but I do not have it with me. The BVA Animal Welfare Foundation Ethics Committee also produced a report : Special Article: Issues arising from recent advances in Biotechnology. Veterinary Record. 133, 53-56. I look forward to following this debate in more detail as it is obvious that some assessment of AW will have to be taken into account before: (i) the release of animals (and their offspring) from protection under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK eg. into agriculture - but what will they do about imports (EFT & GATT)? (ii) the registration of any medicine for veterinary use (iii) and even perhaps the release of any GMO. David Prof.David.B.Morton | Janet: D.B.Morton@uk.ac.bham Biomedical Science and Ethics | Internet: D.B.Morton@bham.ac.uk The Medical School | University of Birmingham | Birmingham | Tel: +44 - (0)121 414 3616 B15 2TT, UK Fax: +44 - (0)121 414 6979 ============================================================================= From: IN%"mrenner@wcupa.edu" "Renner, Michael" 3-FEB-1995 05:09:57.00 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology List'" CC: Subj: FW: toe clipping Those of us one the "Western side of the pond" don't get the ASAB newsletter, being members of the North American sister organization (ABS) instead. If Dr. Poole is on the list, perhaps he could post the article here. If not, perhaps a complete reference and summary, along with Dr. Poole's address, from somebody else? Michael Renner MRenner@Wcupa.Edu (Pennsylvania, a former colony in the Western hemisphere) ---------- From: applied-ethology-error To: applied-ethology Subject: toe clipping Date: Friday, February 03, 1995 9:36AM There was an article by Trevor Poole on alternatives to toe clipping in the ASAB newsletter two or three issues ago. Mike ============================================================================== From: IN%"mrenner@wcupa.edu" "Renner, Michael" 3-FEB-1995 05:11:34.87 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology List'" CC: Subj: Rat talk The mention of a "Rat-talk" list in a recent posting has aroused my curiosity. Could somebody post the address of the listserver for this group? Thank you. ============================================================================== From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 3-FEB-1995 08:30:46.95 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: cortisol and body juices One's fondness for any particular bodily fluid should be based on more than how well corticosteroid concentrations are correlated with those in the blood. The study of stress has moved well beyond just taking measures of cortisol. The well-dressed stress researcher of today ceratinly looks at ACTH, various immune measures, and other hormones affected by stress e.g. prolactin, LH. My question to those of you who are into saliva and urine, is how well can we measure these other physiological changes in each bodily juice. If we can only reliably measure corticosteroids, then I suggest that the body fluid of choice should be blood. Jeff Rushen ============================================================================= From: IN%"psand@coco.ihi.ku.dk" 3-FEB-1995 08:40:09.85 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"jmik@coco.ihi.ku.dk" Subj: ethics and transgenesis First I ought to introduces myself. My name is Peter Sandoee. I am a philosopher interested in animal ethics and animal welfare. Also I am chairman of the Danish Ethical Council concerning Animal which gives advice to the Danish politicians regarding animal welfare issues. Per Jensen asks whether there is any reason for special ethical rules with regard to transgenic animals. I think the answer is no. The following is a brief paper published together with a colleague in Livestock Production Science in 1993. Here we try to defend the view that from an ethical view there is nothing special about transgenic animals. At the end of the paper there are some further references. Transgenic animals - which worries are ethically significant? Peter Sandoee & Nils Holtug University of Copenhagen, Department of Education, Philosophy, and Rethorics, Njalsgade 80, DK-2300 Copenhagen S (Denmark) ABSTRACT Eight common worries concerning the development and use of transgenic animals are formulated. These worries are assessed by two ethical criteria. It is argued that one of the worries, animal welfare, is ethically significant, whereas the rest are either baseless or turn out really to be about animal welfare. INTRODUCTION Many people seem to be morally concerned about the idea of creating and using transgenic animals, but few seem to have any clear conception of what it is about these animals that worries them. It is not just that people lack factual knowledge about transgenic animals - even if the facts were described as fully as possible we think that they would have difficulties telling what exactly they are concerned about. The best way to conduct a discussion is therefore by means of a two-step procedure. First, the main ethical worries which seem to underlie the common negative attitudes towards transgenic animals should be summarized. Secondly, these worries should be assessed one by one. EIGHT ETHICAL WORRIES Experiments aimed at designing transgenic animals and the subsequent use of the animals in research, or in livestock production normally give rise to a number of ethical worries. (For a serious discussion see Pluhar, 1985; Fox, 1986; Pluhar, 1986; and Rollin, 1986). These worries we have tried to summarize under the following eight headings: 1)Genetic variation is likely to be diminished 2)Transgenic animals will increase the danger of biological disasters 3)The techniques are likely to be misused on human beings 4)The unique genetic make-up of species will not be respected 5)Transgenic animals are likely to supplant existing kinds of animals 6)Transgenic animals are treated as mere things 7)Important distinctions between animal species are likely to be blurred 8)Animal welfare will be threatened Each worry should according to our view be assessed in the light of the following two questions: A)Is the worry based on a correct representation of the facts concerning the design of transgenic animals and their use? B)Does the worry apply to other things which we already accept, for example ordinary breeding techniques? We are not here able to provide a full discussion of the eight worries in the light of these two questions, but we can at least give a rough indication of the direction that such a discussion will take. We shall suggest that the first six worries are not really ethically significant. The first three can be questioned in the light of A), and the next three can be dismissed in the light of B). The seventh may, in fact, be turned on its head. Only the eighth worry will turn out to be ethically significant. 1) It is doubtful that the design and use of transgenic animals will diminish genetic variation. First, the techniques now employed for genetic engineering mostly aim at inserting a new gene in the animal, rather than removing one. Thus genetic engineering may be thought of as a potential for increasing genetic variation. Secondly, genetic diversity is being secured by other means, for example by retaining fertilized eggs as potential breeding stock. 2) There are two ways in which the design and use of transgenic animals may be thought to cause biological disasters. First if they escape they may procreate with their RnaturalS sisters and pass on a genetic disadvantage; secondly a retrovirus vector (a vehicle for inserting a gene in the animal) may infect other animals. It is of course a theoretical possibility that a superior transgenic strain will escape and replace other animals in nature. This means that specific guidelines must be established, requiring keepers of transgenic animals to take the necessary precautions against the animals escaping. However, transgenic animals would, even if they did get out, often be disadvantaged in natural competition, and are thus not likely to procreate. Retrovirus vectors may, if they are to be used, be designed in a way so that they infect only once. 3) The techniques now used for designing transgenic animals (e.g. microinjection of DNA in fertilized eggs) are quite crude and do not live up to the official standards required for human gene therapy. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that just because we can create human beings like we create transgenic livestock we will in fact do so. 4) Humans already affect the genetic make-up of species through selective breeding. If ordinary breeding techniques are not rejected it is inconsistent to use respect for the unique genetic make-up of species as an argument specifically against genetic engineering on animals. Anyway, what is so special about the genetic structures which exist right now? 5) Since we already select specific traits in for example livestock, certain kinds of animals are supplanted, whether or not transgenic animals are being developed and used. Thus the farm animals of today differ in many ways from those of yesterday. If traditional breeding techniques are accepted, then again there is no reason to reject genetic engineering. 6) There is already a tendency to treat animals as mere things in industrial farming. Animals are often considered as mere means of satisfying human appetites, and not as sentient creatures the needs of which should be considered in their own right. This problem, however, should be addressed in terms of animal welfare. 7) Too much significance is attached to the distinctions between different species, for example between rats and dogs used in animal experiments, resulting in an unwarranted speciesism. It may in fact be of positive ethical significance if the boundaries between species are blurred, because this could force us to re-assess some of our moral distinctions between animals. 8) Animal welfare is clearly a relevant ethical worry. No doubt some transgenic animals will suffer because of genetic deficiencies. Before embarking on experiments with transgenic animals we should consider whether the results to be achieved are worth the costs in animal suffering. CONCLUSION The design and use of transgenic animals is a matter of serious ethical concern. Most of the common ethical worries concerning transgenic animals are, however, baseless. Here as in other areas where humans make use of animals animal welfare is what really matters from an ethical point of view. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We want to thank J. Peter Hjorth, Klemens Kappel, Jesper Ryberg and two anonymous referees of Livestock Production Science for helpful comments to earlier versions of this paper; thanks are also due to the Danish Research Councils for financial support. REFERENCES Fox, M., 1986, On the genetic manipulation of animals, A response to evelyn pluhar, Between the Species, 2: 51-52. Pluhar, E., 1985, On the genetic manipulation of animals, Between the Species, 1/3: 13-18. Pluhar, E., 1986, The moral justifiability of genetic manipulation, Between the Species, 2: 136-138. Rollin, B., 1986, On telos and genetic manipulation, Between the Species, 2: 88-89. ============================================================================= From: IN%"SLINE@PHS.BGSM.WFU.EDU" 3-FEB-1995 10:21:11.23 To: IN%"mrenner@wcupa.edu" "Renner, Michael" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology List'" Subj: RE: Rat talk On Fri, 3 Feb 1995, Renner, Michael wrote: > > The mention of a "Rat-talk" list in a recent posting has aroused my > curiosity. Could somebody post the address of the listserver for this group? > Thank you. > I joined the RAT-talk list last year. The traffic volume has been relatively light, but I have found the discussions interesting nonetheless. I've attached a copy of the original announcement of the list, which includes information on how to sign on. Scott Line sline@isnet.is.wfu.edu Dept. of Comparative Medicine Bowman Gray School of Medicine Wake Forest University Winston-Salem, NC, USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RAT-TALK: New bulletin board on topics related to animal experimentation Leiden, 15 June 1994 Dear reader, We would like to inform you of the existence of a new international bulletin board, specifically focused on topics related to animal experimentation. The Department for the Study of Animal Experiments: Ethics, History and Alternatives of Leiden University, the Netherlands, has set up a new forum for discussion on Research Animal Topics, called RAT-TALK. RAT-TALK is a special forum for the discussion of topics related to animal experimentation. It is especially focused on the ethics and history of animal experimenta- tion and on alternatives. It is also welcoming discussions on any other topic related to animal experimentation, news items, book reviews, informa- tion on other interesting publications, meeting announcements, debates and discussions about strategies, politics, legal issues, ethical committees, exchanging information, a place for questions and answers and getting to know each other in the field, etcetera. The network is meant for academics (philosophers, animal researchers, social scientists, legal scientists, etc) who are actually involved in a research project on these issues, animal protection organizations, government institutions, policy makers and others interested in the subject, who have specific questions to ask or announcements to make. Host institution of RAT-TALK is the Department for the Study of Animal Experiments: Ethics, History and Alternatives, of Leiden University in the Netherlands, Europe. This department functions as an intermediary between the scientific community and animal protection organisations and believes in dialogue as a constructive way to achieve progress for animals. RAT-TALK distinguishes itself from other discussion lists, like COMPMED (Comparative Medicine List), in that it doesn't handle more technical details about laboratory animal science, except where this may be relevant for alternatives or moral issues. It is also different from current Animal Rights lists, like AR-NEWS and AR-ALERT, in that its subject is limited to animal experimentation issues, in order to get a more specialized list where people dealing with mentioned topics can have more focused discussions and do not need to go through irrelevant messages. We hope all individuals and organisations active in the field will join RAT-TALK in order to establish a lively network and an increase in communication between different people. You can subscribe to RAT-TALK by sending a message saying "SUBSCRIBE RAT-TALK" to LISTSERV@HEARN (Bitnet) or LISTSERV@NIC.SURFNET.NL (Internet). We will then subscribe you to the list and you will receive information about how to use it. Yours sincerely, Prof.Dr. Tjard de Cock Buning Drs. Esteban Rivas List-owner: Department for the Study of Animal Experiments: Ethics, History and Alternatives Leiden University P.O. Box 9602 2300 RC Leiden The Netherlands Europe tel: int+31+71-276722 fax: int+31+71- 275369 email: decock@rullf2.leidenuniv.nl ============================================================================== From: IN%"SARAH.KEER-KEER@afrc.ac.uk" "KEERKEER" 3-FEB-1995 10:57:31.00 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: primates Does anyone know more about a society that was set up by primatologists (including Jane Goodhall, I think) to discourage the use of primates in laboratory (medical etc) research and highlight the plight of primates in captivity where there welfare needs are not met? Sarah Keer-Keer E-mail: Sarah.Keer-Keer@afrc.ac.uk ============================================================================== From: IN%"SARAH.KEER-KEER@afrc.ac.uk" "KEERKEER" 3-FEB-1995 11:24:58.70 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology List'" CC: Subj: RE: FW: toe clipping This is from the Jan 1994, issue 20 of the ASAB newsletter: ETHICS MATTERS Alternatives to toe clipping for identifying small invertebrates A technique for individual marking small rodents, such as mice and shrews, known as 'toe clipping' is cmmonly used by field biologists. It involoves the amputation of toes on one or more feet. Toe clipping is a mutilation which is normally carried out without anaesthetic, so that the animal may suffer pain at the time of amputation and subsequently, during wound healing. It seems to be assumed that small animals suffer less than larger ones if their toes are amputated becuase, for example,this technique would not be regarded as as appropriate for identifying cats or bears. I do not know of any evidence to suggest that smaller animald feel less pain than members of larger specias, although they be less able to communicate their felllingsto humans. Even if the process were painless, the removal of digitsmight impede locomotion and make the animal more vulnerable to predation, thus comprimising the validity of the study. From the standpoint of the welfare of the animal clipping would seem to be a far from satisfactory procedure. Individual identifiaction of animals is often essential in feils studies, but there are now more humane methodsavailable which should be considered as an alternative. Transponders, approximately 12mm long by 1.25-2mm in diameter, are in common use in many laboratories for marking rodents. The transponder is inserted sub-cutaneously through a large diameter hypodermic needle and the rejection rate is very low; rejection is usually the result of faulty insertion. The transponder is activated by a special reader which energizies the micro-chip causing it to transmit a unique number. In some systems, the identifiaction number can be directly recorded into the memory of the reader and can subsequently be transferred directly, along wiht any other input data, to a personal comuter. Transponders cost 4-6 each and readers 400-750 (depending on manufacturer or complexity) and there are three systems (AVID, DESTRON and TROVAN) currently available (see below for suppliers). This technique appears to be more humane than toe clipping and aneasthesia is not necessary. I understand from the firms that market the transponders that they have proved succesful with mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish. Recently, an even simpler marking method has been developed for small rodents (D.Patterson, personal communication). Instead of amutation, one or more toes are tattooed with noe to three dots (depending on the size of the animal). This can be done with commercially available needles and special ink. Although this technique has not been used in the field, many hundreds of laboratory mice have been successfully marked by this method. The technique is equally affective with albino or pigmented mice and so it should be suitable for wild rodents. It also appears to last for the animals lifetime. This method should certainly be tried under field conditions as it is more humane than amputation and does not risk any disablement. In view of these practicle and more humane alternatives to 'toe clipping' , I hope that biologists wishing to identify small animals individually will consider using one of these methods described above. ASAB Ethical Committee would also be interested to have practical accounts of these procedures in the field. Trevor Poole Universities Federation for Animal Welfare Names and addresses of tattooing equipment: Ames Inc, 221 Second Avenue, PIscataway, New Jersey 08854, USA (using special dense pigment 242B). Transponders: AVID 13 x 2.0mm Labtrac Ltd, PO box 19 , Uckfield , East Sussex, TN22 3TF, UK DESTRON 11 x 1.2mm Animal CAre Ltd, Common Road, Dunnington, York, YO1 5RU UK and PLEXX, PO box 217, 6660 AE Elst, The Netherlands TROVAN 12 x 1.8mm RS Biotech, Brook Street , ALVA, Clackmannanshire, FK12 6JJ, Scotland, UK ============================================================================== From: IN%"esa017@ed.sac.ac.uk" "MIKE MENDL" 3-FEB-1995 11:36:42.23 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"esa017@ed.sac.ac.uk" Subj: horses for courses While it's true that the well dressed stress researcher in his/her state of the art lab is undoubtedly measuring a large number of different stress indicators from the blood of catheterised animals, there are situations where catheterisation and/or direct blood sampling is difficult. For example, when rattling around in the back of a lorry with 50 pigs, or using a farmer's animals in "on-farm" research. In these circumstances, other bodily fluids may represent the only way of getting some information relating to stress physiology. Either we abandon these sorts of study altogether, or we continue to develop, e.g. salivary and urinary measures. As Adroaldo Zanella mentioned, pig saliva may also turn out to be a rich source of information relating to other measures of stress physiology (e.g. immune system function). Let's drink to saliva and urine! Mike Mendl ============================================================================== From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.edinburgh.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 3-FEB-1995 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: toe clipping Apologies, I sent out the note about the ASAB article in a hurry. More haste, less speed. Trevor Poole's article was in Issue 20 (January 1994) of the newsletter of the Association for Study of Animal Behaviour. Now I check it, it is shorter than I remembered. It refers to use of transponders, with names and addresses of three suppliers, and to another method: tatooing toes using commercially available needles and special ink. Not much detail is given of this: the reference is to D. Patten, personal communication. I don't think Trevor is on the net because he only has indirect access to email, but he can be contacted on TREVOR.POOLE@UCL.AC.UK and I shall forward this query to him. One other possible approach would be to ask the ASAB editor, Marion Hall, if she could send you a copy: MJ_HALL@UK.AC.OPEN.ACS.VAX Good luck Mike ============================================================================== From: IN%"KEN@WUDCM.WUSTL.EDU" "Ken Boschert" 3-FEB-1995 12:45:35.25 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Rat talk > The mention of a "Rat-talk" list in a recent posting has aroused my > curiosity. Could somebody post the address of the listserver for this group? Posts are sporadic, but usually pretty good quality. Ken ========================================================================== Subscribe to: LISTSERV@NIC.SURFNET.NL RAT-TALK RAT-TALK is an open forum for the discussion of topics related to animal experimentation. It is especially focused on the ethics and history of animal experimenta- tion and on alternatives. It is also welcoming discussions on any other topic related to animal experimentation, news items, book reviews, information on other interesting publications, meeting announcements, debates and discussions about strategies, politics, legal issues, ethical committees, exchanging information, a place for questions and answers and getting to know each other in the field, etcetera. The network is meant for academics (philosophers, animal researchers, social scientists, legal scientists, etc), animal protection organizations, government institutions, policy makers and others interested in the subject. Host institution of RAT-TALK is the Department for the Study of Animal Experiments: Ethics, History and Alternatives, of Leiden University in the Netherlands, Europe. This department functions as an intermediary between the scientific community and animal protection organisations and believes in dialogue as a constructive way to achieve progress for animals. In sending a message to RAT-TALK, please be explicit about the contents in the subject heading of your message. When your first sign on, we recommend that you introduce yourself to the list, giving name, address and profession, what research project(s) you are involved in, if any, and what interests and involvements you have in this field. Following is a form we would like you to complete for your entry into our directory of RAT-TALK users. It will also be added to an addressbook of people working on research animals topics, which will be accessible to people who want information about colleagues in the field. NAME: INSTITUTION: DEPARTMENT: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE/COUNTRY ZIP: PHONE: FAX: E-MAIL: PROFESSION: POSITION WITHIN YOUR ORGANISATION: TITLE AND CONTENTS RESEARCH PROJECT: DURATION OF PROJECT: FUNDING AGENCY PROJECT: AREAS OF INTEREST AND INVOLVEMENT: When responding to items which appear on RAT-TALK, please use your judgment on whether or not it is more appropriate to respond to the individual or to the whole list. Answers to questions which are of general interest to the group should be posted on RAT-TALK. Since this is a free, unmonitored service provided by the Department for the Study of Animal Experiments, when you sign on to RAT-TALK, you agree not to hold this Department or Leiden University responsible for any actions or consequences resulting from the contents of postings or from contacts made through RAT-TALK. The host institution reserves the right to remove any user from this list at its discretion. Welcome to RAT-TALK Department for the Study of Animal Experiments: Ethics, History and Alternatives. Leiden University, the Netherlands, Europe. ============================================================================= ^__^ Ken Boschert, DVM INTERNET: ken@wudcm.wustl.edu ( / \ ) Washington University NOAH: 74431.2545@compuserve.com Division of Comparative Medicine NetVet WWW and Gopher Server \ / Box 8061, 660 S. Euclid Ave. URL: http://netvet.wustl.edu/ =\/= St. Louis, MO 63110 * PHONE: 314-362-3700 * FAX: 314-362-6480 From: IN%"MURN@URIACC.URI.EDU" "Murn Nippo" 3-FEB-1995 13:45:47.10 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: Stressing Calves A colleague without easy access to the list has asked me to throw the following out for comment and assistance. He is a parasitologist and wants to study the onset of parasitism under stress. His animal of choice is 15 week old castrated Holstein calves. I have suggested a few possibilities such as restraint, isolation and ACTH challenge. He seems to lean towards the use of a nutritional method ie:underfeeding on protein or energy. I suggested that I thought this might not be the best idea, but he is not concerned about trying to separate effects due to the underfeeding itself. I would appreciate any suggestions for alternatives, and/or references on using feeding limitations as a stress model. Dr. Murn M. Nippo Phone 401-792-2477 Dept. Fish., Animal & FAX 401-792-4017 Veterinary Science University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI 02881 USA ============================================================================== From: IN%"gboggs@atqm.advtech.uswest.com" "George Boggs" 3-FEB-1995 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: RE: A Vegetarian Question Reply to: RE>>A Vegetarian Question Sarah, Perhaps, being a vegetarian, you have failed to notice that many vegetarians proselytize. For non-vegetarians who have been proselytized to, this may have engendered a defensive attitude. I'm sure there are some non-vegetarians who are as prone to proselytize and who are equally as self-righteous and rude. I think we would both agree that the best rule (if not necessarily the best wording for the topic) is "Live and let live." > [comments about steak] I wonder what Frued would have to say. Please, let's not bring Sigmund Freud into this. His discredited notions about psychology have made him justifiably irrelevant to all but the most ardent devotees. G. Boggs ============================================================================== From: IN%"William_R_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu" 3-FEB-1995 15:35:03.71 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Stressing Calves I really don't see how one could separate the influence of nutritional stress from parasite infestation and don't understand why one would use nutritional stress in such a study. A method commonly used to experimentally produce stress in young cattle is to transport (or simulate transporting) them in trucks. Ray Stricklin ============================================================================= From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 3-FEB-1995 15:53:24.98 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: cortisol and mood Marek Spinka asks: ` By analogy, if we record elevated levels of cortisol in an animal, could we assume that it FEELS stressed? excited? depressed?` Definitely not. There are several reasons why we can`t just measure cortisol and infer the mood of an animal. 1. there is often considerable diurnal variation in cortisol not connected to obvious mood changes 2. pleasurable events like sex often result in increased corticosteroid levels 3. old studies giving rats electric shocks of varying amplitude show that, while behavioural changes often match the amplitude of the shock, the magnitude of the cortisol response is often not well correlated, 4. there are some studies showing that chronic pain may be associated with reduced corticosteroid levels (S. J. Ley et al. 1991 Veterinary Record 129:45-47). I reviewed some of the evidence for this a long time ago (Rushen, J. Australian Veterinary Journal 1986 63:359-361). I haven`t seen any recent evidence to make me change my mind. This doesn`t mean that corticosteroids are useless when trying to infer the animals perception of a stressor. For example, if we have reason to believe that a treatment is painful, variation in corticosteroid responses *might* give some information about the degree of pain felt. However, corticosteroid levels often hit a ceiling, and don`t increase much beyond a certain point, so that we may not get much discrimination between the more painful treatments. Despite this, there is reason to believe that some negative emotional states may result in corticosteroid secretion, and that increases in the intensity of the negative mood may result in higher corticosteroid levels. Ebbie has mentioned the fact that CRF in pigs increases both cortisol levels and increases the incidence of vocalization, which we often assume is a sign of some distress. Jan Ladewig and I have found that the opioid blocker naloxone given during a stress can increase both cortisol and ACTH responses and also increase the vocalizations of the pigs. This suggests that the intensity of the emotional response and the magnitude of the HPA response may be linked. To summarize this long-winded reply: increasing the intensity of an negative emotional state can result in increased corticosteroid levels in the blood. However, we cannot just take measures of corticosteroids and infer the intensity of the mood. Jeff Rushen ============================================================================= From: IN%"u8421aa@sunmail.lrz-muenchen.de" 4-FEB-1995 06:03:30.83 To: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" CC: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: cortisol and body juices On Fri, 3 Feb 1995, JEFF RUSHEN wrote: > One's fondness for any particular bodily fluid should > be based on more than how well corticosteroid concentrations > are correlated with those in the blood. The study of stress has > moved well beyond just taking measures of cortisol. The well-dressed > stress researcher of today ceratinly looks at ACTH, various immune > measures, and other hormones affected by stress e.g. prolactin, LH. No one has questioned the need for a "black tie" to explore stress responses. During the last few messages salivary cortisol has been quoted as an additional measure to be taken. > My question to those of you who are into saliva and urine, is how well > can we measure these other physiological changes in each bodily jui > If we can only reliably measure corticosteroids, then I suggest that > the body fluid of choice should be blood. > I mentioned in my message that we have been measuring biopterines, I did some work looking salivary IgA and it has been reported that cytokines present in saliva. We have data on salivary LDH, Glucose and others. I would like to suggest that scientists involved is "stress" research should look for the relationships which Jeff Rushen mentioned. Adroaldo Zanella ============================================================================= From: IN%"M.A.W.RUIS@ID.AGRO.NL" 4-FEB-1995 17:11:14.48 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Cortisol and mood Marek Spinka asked: >Do glucocorticoids have an effect on human mood? I would like to refer to an article of Barden et al. (1995). This study indicates that patients suffering from severe depression have a defec- tive glucocorticoid feedback inhibition illustrated by an increased activity of the HPA-axis and an escape from the cortisol suppressant action of dexamethasone. Barden, N., J.M.H.M. Reul and F.Holsboer (1995). Do antidepressants stabilize mood through actions on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adreno- cortical system? Trends Neurosci. 18, no.1, 6-11. Marko Ruis Institute for Animal Science and Health (ID-DLO) Research Branch Zeist P.O.Box 501 3700 AM Zeist The Netherlands ============================================================================== From: IN%"M.A.W.RUIS@ID.AGRO.NL" 5-FEB-1995 16:20:08.12 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Physiological assessments in saliva Dear all, As a follow up for the discussion about measurement of total versus free cortisol or plasma versus salivary cortisol, I have a next question. Besides cortisol, we want to measure other substances in saliva, indicative of experienced stress. As an immuneparameter, IgA is mentio- ned (or maybe pteridines). Can anybody provide some information on this subjects and/or give some references? Thank you. Marko Ruis Institute for Animal Science and Health (ID-DLO) Research Branch Zeist P.O. Box 501 3700 AM Zeist The Netherlands ============================================================================== From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 6-FEB-1995 09:56:24.13 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"sarah.keer-keer@afrc.ac.uk" Subj: RE: A Vegetarian Question SARAH.KEER-KEER wrote: >The letter said: >`Surely this is another example of the brainwashing of society by >ill-advised, fanatical vegetarians.' >And Jeff in his analyis said: >>***This is probably a statement of fact, but it is difficult to >>say whether it is true. How many vegetarians became vegetarian >>through rational consideration of all the arguements for and >>against? How many became vegetarian through peer pressure, >>because it was fashionable, without understanding all the >>relevent arguements?**** >These statements I find almost offensive. Is this really 'probably >a statement of fact', or is it another value statement? Does Jeff >really consider it 'probable' that vegetarians are brainwashing >society? When I called it a statement of fact I was not implying that it was true (In fact I said: `it is difficult to say whether it is true'). I was trying to indicate that this was `probably' (with this word put in to indicate that I wasn`t sure) a statement that could be tested out in some way, rather than purely a statement of values. Of course, the letter-writer`s values were apparent in his/her choice of words (`fanatic', `brainwash' etc.). Personally, I think *most* of the values held by *most* people are held as a result of upbringing, fashion, peer pressure etc., rather than through a rational consideration of the ethical principles involved. Also, *some* of the people who hold a particular value make an effort to convince other people to adopt that value, and they don`t *always* appeal to reason. I don`t think vegetarianism is any different. The extent that this is true of vegetarianism could probably be tested out in a scientific manner (which is why I called it a statement of fact). The use of the word `brainwashing' to describe this probably would be a matter of values. To reiterate: the original reason why we all got into this was Birte question as to what scientists could do in response to such a letter. My view was that scientists are best when they address factual statements. And the reason I labelled the `brainwashing' statement as a factual statement was that it is conceivable that scientists could provide some data relevent to this point (e.g. how many people are vegetarian, why they hold this belief, how much do they try to persuade other people etc.) >But does rational consideration of all the arguements make a >choice more *valid* somehow? No, but then I never said it did. One thing that I *did* say was that when we criticize people we should criticize them for what they said, not for what we thought they meant. >Jeff replies to the above statement: >>***This is a value statement in which he indicates that he is not >>going to be pushed around--- and good for him! >In summary I think Jeff's ananlysis of the letter would have been >stregthened if he had not made his own value statements about the >value statements, Maybe, but lets make it clear that what I was valuing was the fact that `he (perhaps `she') is not going to be pushed around' >but as Allison Taylor points out it is a myth that science is a >value-free process and Jeff's analysis seem, to me (!), to >illlustrate this well. And, like Allison Taylor`s own launch into science and values, this statement could be used by students of logic as a good example of a non-sequitur. Jeff Rushen ============================================================================ From: IN%"HARRISM@sask.usask.ca" 6-FEB-1995 13:30:43.46 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "etho-list" CC: IN%"harrism@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Vegetarian survey - results Dear everybody, here are the results of the survey about dietary preferences. I asked readers of the applied-ethology network whether they were meat -eaters, vegetarian (no meat or fish), or vegan (no animal products) - and invited any further comments, for example, about whether family members shared the respondent's preferences. 43 people replied - 22 from Europe, 21 from North America. 23 were male, 18 female, and 2 of unidentified gender. There were 9 vegetarians (8/9 from Europe, 7/9 female) and one male North American vegan ..... I classified people according to their own statement, so a couple of fish- eaters are included in the vegetarians. A couple of the now-omnivores also said that they had been vegetarian for a period of their lives. The remainder (33) were omnivores. Most respondents also included extra information. The majority of the meat-eaters stated that they had reduced the amount of meat consumed, or discriminated between types and/or sources of meat, either for health reasons (a few people) or due to animal welfare concerns (many people). For example, some raised their own animals, or bought from small farms, or bought free-range products (this also applied to those vegetarians who ate eggs, milk, etc). Some meat-eaters did not eat veal, chicken, or pork, due to concerns about the way that calves, chickens, pigs are farmed. A few people also told me about dietary preferences of their friends/families. Most families' diets seemed to be in reasonable harmony - vegetarian respondents having mainly vegetarian families/friends, and omnivorous respondents' families eating meat. - Moira ============================================================================== From: IN%"JSWANSON@oz.oznet.ksu.edu" "JANICE SWANSON" 6-FEB-1995 16:38:06.29 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Position announcement Dear Subscribers, I have received the following position announcement from Dr. Ray Wright, Search Committee Chair, Washington State University. POSITION DESCRIPTION Washington State University invites applications and nominations for an Assistant or Associate Professor (Animal Well-Being). This is a tenure-track, 12 month appointment. The individual must have a Ph.D. or D.V.M. and advanced training in animal welfare or behavior. The ability to communicate and collaborate effectively with others in teaching, research and the public are essential. Specific responsibilities include instruction at the undergraduate and graduate/professional school level, establishment of a productive, extramurally funded research program, and interact with the University and livestock industry and public sectors on animal welfare issues. Experience in and familiarity with livestock or aquaculture production practices is highly desirable. To ensure consideration, send a cover letter describing qualifications and goals for the position, curriculum vitae, completed college transcripts and names, addresses and FAX numbers of three references to: Raymond W. Wright Jr., Search Committee Chair, Department of Animal Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman WA 99164-6332 (Telephone 509-335-4125; FAX 509-335-1074). Screening of applicants will begin April 3, 1995 and continue until the position is filled. EEO/AA/ADA. ============================================================================== From: IN%"dcanderson@ucdavis.edu" "David Anderson" 7-FEB-1995 13:18:05.83 To: IN%"Per.Jensen@hhyg.slu.se" "Per Jensen" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Transgenic animals Per, The article David Morton mentioned is: Strachan Donnelley, Charles R. McCarthy, Rivers Singleton, Jr., "The brave new world of animal biotechnology," Special Supplement, Hastings Center Report, 24(1) 1994 Jan-Feb:S1-S32. It lists 91 references. Available from the Hastings Center, 255 Elm Rd, Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA; 914-762-8500 (credit card orders accepted). Cost is $US 4.00 each for 1-4 copies; $3.50/copy for 10-19 copies; $2.50/copy for 20+ copies to one address; price includes shipping, surface mail domestic or outside the USA. Hastings Center accepts prepaid orders. David C Anderson, Information Specialist University of California Center for Animal Alternatives ============================================================================= From: IN%"JSWANSON@oz.oznet.ksu.edu" "JANICE SWANSON" 8-FEB-1995 11:25:57.20 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Agriculture Canada Dear Canadian friends, I have a friend with the Congressional Research Service in Washington DC who has asked me to verify if Agriculture Canada still goes by that name. There is idea that they may have changed it. Also, what is Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada? Are they private or public organizations? Any assistance will be appreciated. (Seems there has been some discussion about changing our Department of Agriculture's name to better reflect its responsibilities). Thank you for your assistance. Janice Swanson jswanson@oz.oznet.ksu.edu ============================================================================== From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 8-FEB-1995 15:02:04.13 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"jswanson@oz.oznet.ksu.edu" Subj: Agriculture and Agri-Food (Agriculture et agroalimentaire) Canada Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Agriculture et agroalimentaire Canada are the new official names for what used to be, in both English and French, Agriculture Canada. It is a department of the federal government. I think the logic behind the name changes was that food production and food processing are now seen as important as animal production and plant production. Most research stations have also changed their names: the Research Station at Lennoxville is now the Centre for Research and Development in Dairy Cattle and Swine Production. Further name changes may follow the Quebec referendum, but I remain Jeff Rushen ============================================================================== From: IN%"REPRO@nbc.upenn.edu" 8-FEB-1995 19:47:45.92 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Sheep Related Injuries to People I am trying to estimate the number of ram related injuries in the United States, Canada, and other countries annually. Does anyone know who might gather statistics on animal-related human injuries and deaths? Thank you Sue McDonnell University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine New Bolton Center, Kennett Square, PA 19348 610-444-5800 FAX 610-444-0829 Repro@NBC.UPENN.EDU ============================================================================== From: IN%"dcanderson@ucdavis.edu" "David Anderson" 8-FEB-1995 20:58:24.52 To: IN%"REPRO@nbc.upenn.edu" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Sheep Related Injuries to People Sue McDonnell, For the United States, try the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. They keep mortality/injury statistics by various causes, and may or may not have it broken down by type of livestock. David Anderson, Information Specialist UC Center for Animal Alternatives ============================================================================== From: IN%"Per.Jensen@hhyg.slu.se" 10-FEB-1995 03:53:51.68 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Transgenic animal welfare Dear all, Thanks for several contributions and valuable informations regarding references, etc. However, only Peter Sandoe has actually taken up the issue seriously on the network, and I would still like to see some other opinions on the matter. The article Sandoe provided was interesting, but (I think) too superfluous. For example, Sandoe & Holtug argue that genetic variability may actually increase, because we are inserting new genes into the genome of the animal. In this assumption, the authors have not considered that once we have created a transgenic animal, we would like to keep the gene in the population. Hence, continued breeding of transgenic animals is likely to be very restrictive, thereby decreasing genetic variability. Genes are not inserted to increase variation, but to decrease it, so we can predict the genotypes of the animals better. They further argue that, since humans already manipulate the genome by selection, there is nothing particular about using gene manipulation. However, this is precisely the issue I am trying to raise here - isn't there? I think this statement by Sandoe and Holtug are doubtful and escapes the whole problem. I will give a few examples of why gene manipulation differs from ordinary breeding: 1. Breeding by selection can only act on the actual genome of a population. It is confined to the existing variation (plus the odd mutations). Since this variation is a product of an adaptation process, it seems less likely that we will create highly abnormal individuals (although I know of several examples to contradict this, they are dealt with in following arguments). 2. The speed of change is much smaller with normal breeding, which allows us to discover any unwanted effects during the course of the modification of a population. For example, if I introduce a gene for increased production of growth hormone into the genome of a pig, I will immediately yield a high-producing individual, which would take many generations by means of normal breeding (if at all possible). If there are unexpected by-products of the high production (for example, leg weakness), these will be discovered during the course of breeding, but not until they are already there in the gene-manipulated animal. 3. By introducing a new gene, maybe from another species, we may create combination effects never encountered during normal breeding. For example, a gene for production of a specific enzyme may work allright in the "genetic ecology" of one species, but when inserted into a completely different genetic environment, it may cause unexpected and unwanted interactions with the existing genes. I can't think of a good example, but in the literature there are several documented negative health effects of gene manipulation. Some of these may be due to this phenomenon. Sandoe and Holtug conclude that the only relevant issue for ethical concern is the welfare considerations. In consequence, Peter Sandoe concludes that there is no need for a special set of ethical rules for transgenic animals. To me, the three arguments above suggest the opposite. Furthermore, Sandoe and Holtug do not really mention what the welfare concerns might be like. I have indicated above some matters which concern me - maybe there are others, or maybe I'm misled. Another point which is interesting: Does anyone know of any experiment where the aim has been to modify behaviour by means of gene manipulation? So far, it seems that most of the experiments are concerned with (a) increasing production, (b) increasing disease resistance, (c) making animals produce non-species-specific substances for use on other species. How do these manipulations affect behaviour? Has anyone looked into that? I am eager to hear more opinions, or comments on this area. Best wishes, Per ******************************************************************* Per Jensen Professor of Ethology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Hygiene, Section of Ethology SKARA, SWEDEN E-mail: Per.Jensen@hhyg.slu.se ******************************************************************* From: IN%"IDUNCAN@APS.UoGuelph.CA" 10-FEB-1995 12:40:35.41 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Transgenic animal welfare Dear all, I have been following the discussion on genetic engineering and the possible consequences for welfare with considerable interest. I suspect that I am not alone in feeling that there may be welfare risks in these new technologies - but when one tries to analyse what the risks might be, they seem to be exactly the same as those raised by conventional breeding programs. Per should not interpret silence on the network as no interest! I would like to put forward exactly the opposite view to Per's second point. Perhaps the fast speed of change MIGHT BE A WELFARE BENEFIT. If there are any deleterious effects they will be discovered immediately (and presumably this will be on a small scale). This is in contrast to what has happened, for example, in the poultry meat industry where we now have millions of birds suffering from "fast growth problems" (skeletal defects, ascites, etc.). These changes have occurred insidiously over several generations and, until recently, have been ignored because of the accompanying increases in productivity. Thus, many generations of birds have suffered AND we now have to try to reverse the genetic "progress" by conventional means. If we had gone from "primitive broilers" (or turkeys) to present-day broilers in one step, the problem would have been recognised AND we would have the "primitive" breeding stock available to try again. By the way, I still feel uncomfortable about genetic engineering! Yours sincerely, Ian Duncan ============================================================================= From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 10-FEB-1995 14:21:55.33 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"per.jensen@hhyg.slu.se" Subj: Jensen's transgenic ethics Dear all, I disagree with everything Per Jensen says about the ethics of transgenics. :-) Evolution involves two separate processes: random mutation, which introduces variation within a population, and natural selection, which changes the relative frequencies of mutations within the population. Breeding is the equivalent of the second process (natural selection), whereas the insertion of a gene into a transgenic animal is equivalent to mutation. Once a gene has been inserted into the genome of one or a few animals, we then have to consider whether we wish this gene to spread into the population at large, via normal breeding. > we would like to keep the gene in the >population. Hence, continued breeding of transgenic animals is likely to >be very restrictive, thereby decreasing genetic variability. Genes are not >inserted to increase variation, but to decrease it, so we can predict the >genotypes of the animals better. No more than ordinary breeding. In fact, natural mutations only occur once and are often associated with other genes by chance. Selection for that mutation results in coincidental selection for the other associated genes, which reduces gentic variability. An imaginary scenario: a mutant gene might arise in a cow which produces a large amount of growth hormone but happens to be associated with a gene for blues eyes. Selection for that gene will also involve selection for blue eyes, so we will end up with blue eyed cows. However, we could insert a gene into two cows: one with blue eyes and one with pink eyes. By selecting both, we can maintain pink eyes and blues eyes in the population. >I will give a few examples of why gene manipulation >differs from ordinary breeding: These examples aren't valid since gene insertion is equivalent to mutation NOT to breeding. >1. Breeding by selection can only act on the actual genome of a >population. It is confined to the existing variation (plus the odd >mutations). Since this variation is a product of an adaptation process, it >seems less likely that we will create highly abnormal individuals But natural mutation, I suggest, is more likely to produce a monster than is deliberate gene insertion, since the latter is not totally random but is based on partial knowledge of what the gene will do. In any case, the "monster" question is really a matter of animal welfare. >2. The speed of change is much smaller with normal breeding, which allows >us to discover any unwanted effects during the course of the modification >of a population. But not smaller than the speed of mutation. Breeding will also allow us to remove an abnormal "inserted gene" in the same way that it will allow natural selection to remove an abnormal "mutated gene". >3. By introducing a new gene, maybe from another species, we may create >combination effects never encountered during normal breeding. But again, this is no different from what can occur as a result of natural mutation. Jeff Rushen ============================================================================= From: IN%"mjk1000@cus.cam.ac.uk" "M.J. Kennedy" 10-FEB-1995 16:24:42.05 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Dear All, I am a graduate student at the University of Cambridge, working in Professor Broom's Animal Welfare/Human Animal Interactions Group. I have been working toward a PhD in Animal Welfare, and intend to submit my thesis in September this year. My research involved the study of aggression in pigs at mixing, the development of a method of reducing aggression at this time, and the identification of the major factors contributing to this effect. In addition, I also conducted studies of the behaviour of pigs on a newly established "hybrid" outdoor unit, in which pigs had free access to a covered lying area in addition to outdoor paddocks. Before starting my research in Cambridge, in the final year of studies for my initial degree ((BSc Zoology (Hons)), I conducted research on common breed and management factors among horses exhibiting stereotypies. Having gained considerable experience in the development and use of behavioural and physiological measures of welfare, I wish to continue my research. I have a great deal of experience with horses, having worked as a riding instructor and manager of a riding school before embarking on my university career, and wish to conduct research in horse welfare. I would therefore be very grateful indeed if any researchers out there who may have positions available could contact me directly at my personal email address, or via the normal postal service. My postal address is: Mark J. Kennedy, University of Cambridge, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 OES U.K. Best wishes to all, Mark J. Kennedy. ============================================================================== From: IN%"JSWANSON@oz.oznet.ksu.edu" "JANICE SWANSON" 12-FEB-1995 19:51:00.00 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: North American Regional Meeting Dear North American ISAE members and Network Friends: I am preparing registration materials for our second North American Regional meeting of ISAE to be held July 8-9 at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, Nebraska. The meeting will be held prior to the Animal Behavior Society meetings which begin the evening of July 8 and run through the 13th. The tentative meeting schedule begins with a regional business meeting/discussion on Saturday afternoon, then a barbecue with ABS on Saturday evening, a short plenary session (ABS) first thing Sunday morning and our Free Paper session for the rest of the day. The ISAE Social will be Sunday evening with a joint Poster session with ABS that evening. ABS has invited our members to attend their Applied Ethology session on Monday morning. In order to get some measure of how many members (and non-members) plan to attend the regional meeting please respond to the following questions and e-mail/fax them back to me ASAP. Name:___________________________________________________ Region:__________________________________________________ Will you be attending this meeting? ______ If applicable: Will any of your graduate students be attending?____ How many____ If you are planning to attend: Will you present a paper?___ If so what type of presentation? ____oral ___poster Please provide the title of your paper(s): (if you are answering for your graduate students include their papers too) Please return this survey to Janice Swanson at: email: jswanson@oz.oznet.ksu.edu FAX: 913-532-7059 You may call me at: 913-532-1244 for more information. Thank you for your time and cooperation! Janice Swanson, US Regional Secretary ISAE ============================================================================== From: IN%"kmorgan@wheatonma.edu" 13-FEB-1995 07:49:30.55 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Desperately Seeking Medawar Quote HI all, I am desperately seeking the source of a quote presumably attributed to Sir Peter Medawar, in which he says that "The welfare of animals depends upon an understanding of animals, and one does not come by that understanding intuitively--it must be learned." If you know where this quote came from, and can supply the full citation, I would be undyingly grateful Thanks! --Kathy Morgan kmorgan@wheatonma.edu or kathleen_morgan@wheatonma.edu ============================================================================== From: IN%"hesih3@wptemp.kvl.dk" 13-FEB-1995 08:10:45.54 To: IN%"Per.Jensen@hhyg.slu.se", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Transgenic animal welfare -Reply A comment to the interesting discussion on gene manipulation. Per Jensen mentioned 3 main areas of experimentation with trangenic animals. Further areas of great importance are the use of laboratory animals as disease models eg. the onco-mouse and even more important we may in a not very far future create high compatibility animals eg. pigs which can be used as organ donors to human receivers. The onco mouse certainly have a welfare problem. This is probably not the case with a kidney donating pig although I admit there may in this case also be an ethical problem. Best wishes to all, Henrik B. Simonsen ============================================================================= From: IN%"chewson@ovcnet.uoguelph.ca" 13-FEB-1995 13:51:12.26 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: cortisol in milk Further to the discussion on the measurement of cortisol: a nutritionist friend has asked me re the validity of milk cortisol as an indicator of `stress' in cows fed on various deficient diets. (Apparently, milk cortisol has been shown to correlate with emotional `stress' in women). I would be most grateful for any information on the topic. (I haven't followed the earlier discussion re urine vs plasma/serum vs saliva very closely and apologize if the milk issue has already been covered) Caroline Hewson Dept of Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph e-mail: chewson@ovcnet.uoguelph.ca ============================================================================== From: IN%"MPRICE@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA" "M.A. Price Professor" 13-FEB-1995 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Jensen's transgenic ethics From: M.A. Price Professor Ag., Fd & Nutr. Science University of Alberta Jeff disagrees with everything Per says on transgenics, but he bases his disageeement on a false premise: that evolution is driven by two (and by implication only two) forces: mutations and natural selection. Most evolutionists believe that progress is driven far more by gene recombinations, and that progess from mutations is unusual. The addition of new genes into an existing genome results in a huge number of recombinations which could in fact result in all sorts of unexpected phenotypic outcomes. Though like Jeff, I am quite unprepared to believe that they would resemble the mythological chimeric monsters. Mick Price (403) 492 3235 ============================================================================== From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.edinburgh.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 14-FEB-1995 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: love at first sight I recently heard a fascinating account of pair-bonding in tree shrews. Apparently when a new pair meet (presumably in experimental conditions) it is obvious within 4 seconds whether they will bond for life or never look at each other again. Is there anything similar in any other monogamous species, or come to that polygamous? How about humans? Is it actually lust at first sight, which may (or may not) later develop into love? If it does, then the initial response might be remembered as love. Happy 14th February, Mike ============================================================================== From: IN%"CEM1008@PHOENIX.CAMBRIDGE.ac.uk" 14-FEB-1995 04:30:04.01 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Love-life of tree shrews What an appropriate story for Valentine's day from Mike Appleby. I know that when two male tree shrews are caged toether in the laboratory, apparently they fight and the loser dies within days, even though he may have only superficial wounds. Can you tell us, Mike, when a male and female meet and do not get on, does one die of a broken heart and if so, is it the male or the female ? Have a good day ! Caroline Manser =============================================================================== From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.edinburgh.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 14-FEB-1995 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Genetic Engineering Dear All I am quite sure that no one has set out to manipulate behaviour by gene insertion. Genetic engineering is still extremely expensive and there have to be clear profits in view. In theory it might be possible to do something BECAUSE it would give a welfare advantage, but somebody has to pay the bills. In fact the example which is usually quoted as a potential welfare benefit is increased disease resistance, and as far as I can discover that looks much less likely than at first thought: simply because if we create disease-resistant animals that will greatly increase the selection pressure on the disease organisms to change. There are one or two examples of 'generic' disease resistance which look more hopeful (for example, resistance of African cattle to local diseases, which has NOT been overcome by change in the diseases) but no one has done any work on these yet. So the major area of work so far is on pharmaceutical production, where the potential profits are huge. Many examples seem to have no welfare implications (apart from the initial surgery and so on): for example, sheep producing alpha-1-antitrypsin in Edinburgh show no ill-effects, and a study we have done on their behaviour (still being analysed) showed no major problems. Others have had problems in experimental work: production of erythropoetin in mice led to major haemorrhaging and death. My worry is that some very valuable product might turn out to have relatively minor side-effects and that there would be commercial pressure to tolerate these. That takes us into the area which Ian Duncan mentions. Certainly the major deleterious effects which arise suddenly can be detected and banned, as in the Beltsville pig (where growth hormone insertion led to gross arthritis and other problems). Again, I am concerned that there might be improvements in production which had rather smaller disadvantages for welfare and that if we are not careful there will be pressure to tolerate these. I do not think that the current legal safeguards we have are sufficient to assess such effects and I believe that genetic modification IS a special case which needs proper processes to be put in place for such assessment. I would say, though, that current opinion is less bullish on the prospects of improvement of production by genetic engineering than it was some years ago. CHANGES in production are perhaps another matter, as in 'Herman' the bull (whose offspring will produce milk intended to be more suitable for human consumption). Apparently Harry Blokhuis knows more about this and I should like to hear his comments. On laboratory animals I think the jury is still out. One argument for the oncomouse is that while the welfare of some individuals is clearly poor it should reduce the number of animals used in experiments. I don't think this has been proven: for example, availability of a useful experimental animal might well increase the number of experiments. On some other issues I think that I am more with Per Jensen than with Jeff Rushen. Most 'traditional' breeding is not on mutations but on multi-gene traits. If we produce a large number of animals from a single progenitor (e.g. Herman (that's the bull, not Wierenga)) we will certainly reduce genetic diversity. There might be comparisons, though, where mutations HAVE been used. What is genetic diversity like in Belgian Blue cattle? One thing I find is that having been in a group for a year discussing this I now have fewer formless worries. For example, I think I vaguely envisaged dozens of horrendous monsters like the Beltsville pig being brought into mass production. I now know that wouldn't happen, but I do believe we need proper safeguards. Mike ============================================================================== From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.edinburgh.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 14-FEB-1995 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: love in the tree tops I have been asked for references on tree shrews. Unfortunately I have mislaid the only one I had. I was told about the work by Piet Wiepkema and I am almost sure that it was by van Hooff. Perhaps someone else can confirm or refute this or provide a reference. In reply to Caroline, I don't remember any mention of unrequited passion by one of a pair - I think it was both or neither. Perhaps some individuals did in fact have broken hearts but just behaved in a frightfully grown-up way about it all. Mike ============================================================================== From: IN%"F.Toates@open.ac.uk" "F.Toates (Fred Toates)" 14-FEB-1995 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: tree shrews Dear All, See D. von Holst "Vegetative and somatic components of tree shrew's behaviour" Journal of the Autonomic Nervous System, Suppl. (1986), 657-670, Regards, Fred ============================================================================== From: IN%"hesih3@wptemp.kvl.dk" 14-FEB-1995 07:39:51.11 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca", IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.edinburgh. CC: Subj: Genetic Engineering -Reply Dear all. Mike mentions "Herman's" daughter's milk which may be more suitable to human consumption as compared to "normal" milk. The "transgenic milk" has a high content of lactoferrin which has a bactericidal effect. This means, that "Hermans" daughters may be more or less resistant to mastitis and therefore they may have a reduced risk of getting this disease after eg. treatment with BST. Mastitis however is a multifactorial disease not only caused by specific bacteria but also by suboptimal and stress inducing housing and management. This means, that "Herman's" daughter's may have less mastitis although they still may be kept under non optimal conditions. Henrik B. Simonsen Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University Copenhagen, Denmark E-mail: hesih3@wptemp.kvl.dk ============================================================================== From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 14-FEB-1995 07:56:05.32 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: St Valentines Day Tree Shrew Massacre von Holst , D. 1985 Coping behaviour and stress physiology in male tree shrews in B. Hoelldobler and M. Lindauer (eds) Experimental Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart pages 461-470 von Holst, D. 1972 Renal failure as the cause of death in Tupaia belangeri exposed to persistent social stress J. comp. Physiol. 78:236-273 Martin, R. D. 1968 Reproduction and ontogeny in tree shrews with reference to their general behaviour and taxonomic relationships Z. Tierpsychologie 25:409-495 and 505-532 ============================================================================== From: IN%"Lene=Munksgaard%kvaeg%Husdyr1@sh1.foulum.min.dk" 14-FEB-1995 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: cortisol in milk The following papers are discussing cortisol in milk: Termeulen et al. 1981 J.dairy Sci. 64:2197-200 Shutt et al. 1985. J.Dairy Sci. 68:1832-34 Bremel & Gangwer 1978 J.Dairy Sci. 61:1103-08 Tucker & Schwalm 1977. J.Anim. Sci. 46:627-634 Fox et al. 1981 J.Dairy Sci. 64:1794-1803 Lene Munksgaard National Institute of Animal research Denmark ============================================================================== From: IN%"di-bushong@tamu.edu" 14-FEB-1995 08:58:12.73 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FEMALES IN APPLIED ETHOLOGY This message is a request for information from the females on the applied- ethology net whose careers are in the areas of ethology, applied ethology, environmental physiology, animal behavior, animal cognition, or general animal science. I do not wish to be discriminatory against the male population out there, but this particular request is for the females of the group because the information I wish to gather is to give sixth grade girls evidence that there are women working every day in these fields (even though perhaps less visible publicly than the big names like Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, Barbara Smuts -- my primate background may be showing here). I have been asked to be a presenter at Texas A&M University's Third Annual Expanding Your Horizons in Math and Science Annual Conference for sixth grade girls. It is hosted in the Brazos Valley by the American Association of University Women, the Center for Academic Enhancement, and the Women in Engineering, Science, and Technology (WEST) Program. In an effort to show these girls that women are working in the above mentioned fields in all different forms and capacities, I ask that each female fill out the following form. I will compile the information into a handout to give the girls. I am not only asking for the doctorates out there either. There are loads of careers that women fulfill (animal technicians, research assistants) that often do not require advanced degrees. I would like to hear from every woman in the field. Addresses, phone numbers are not necessary. Married and children info is totally optional but is often helpful in providing evidence that not only can a woman have a career but a life too!!! You can either reply using this mailing or my e-mail address is: di-bushong@tamu.edu Thanks in advance for your cooperation and support. I'm sure the girls will appreciate it also. Name: Current Profession: Institution, Company, Agency affliated with: Animals working with: Degree(s)(what major and university): Personal (if you want): Would you like a copy of the compiled list? Diana Bushong Texas A&M University Applied Ethology (or Animal Euthenics depending on the time of day) email address: di-bushong@tamu.edu ============================================================================== From: IN%"di-bushong@tamu.edu" 14-FEB-1995 09:02:54.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FEMALES IN APPLIED ETHOLOGY Please be sure that your replies to my request for information is sent directly to my e-mail address. I understand that sometimes replies go to the applied-ethology net--some systems list it when you choose the "reply" option. I wouldn't want to flood the net with unwelcome info!!! Diana Bushong Texas A&M University Applied Ethology (or Animal Euthenics depending on the time of day) email address: di-bushong@tamu.edu =============================================================================== From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 14-FEB-1995 09:52:08.93 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: not-quite-the-Medawar-quote-but...... Someone asked about a Medawar quote. I have lost the original posting and I can`t even remember which list it was put over. My apologies, if this is the wrong one. I can`t find the quote asked for, but Peter and J. S. Medawar have a number of quotable quotes in a piece `Animal and Human Obligations` in their book Aristotle to Zoos. Harvard University Press, 1983.: `Blood sports constitute another socially accepted practice that disdvantages creatures lower than man. Killing animals for fun belongs to a tradition so old and so closely associated with what are thought of as manly virtues that it is not counted a malpractice even when some rich and doubtless overweight mechanized vacationer off the coast of Florida whiles away his time by assassinating a shark or some other magnificent sea beast.` (p18) `Another misuse of animals is now arousing loud self-reproach: the treatment of animals as manufactured products- or simply as machines to convert vegetables into meat, as is the case with battery chickens and other animals that can be subjected to mechanized husbandry....it cannot be denied that the entire proceeding is an affront to one`s sense of the fitness of things, and a moral diminishment of man` (p 19). Interestingly, Peter Medawar (a medical researcher) is rather more kind to the use of animals in medical research: `Those whose affection for animals is so extreme as to encourage an indifference to human welfare that borders on misanthropy advocate a total halt to experimentation on animals...by the recklessly inaccurate assertion that experimentation on animals has brought no benefits to mankind....a feat of doublethink.' (p16) In relation to the recent discussion on the benign practice of breeding animals: `among the folk most guilty of cruelty to animals...are professed animal lovers themselves. We have in mind the practice....of breeding dogs for perpetuation of the exhibition points that count high in shows....of frank abnormalities....the sadly crumpled face of the bulldog with its deeply folded skin, predisposed to dermatitis....Vanity is at the root of these excesses....Many of the people that condone or even applaud such these malpractices arrogate to themselves the title of dog lover and are among the loudest in denouncing the use of animals in medical research` (p 18-19) Jeff Rushen ============================================================================= From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 14-FEB-1995 10:47:54.39 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: theology and animal welfare (book) From: OTTGW::IN%"ANDRUSKO@MAIL.LOC.GOV" "SAMUEL M ANDRUSKO" 14-FEB-1995 11:15:53.94 To: IN%"ar-news@cygnus.com" CC: Subj: FYI: NEW BOOK Animal theology / Andrew Linzey. Urbana, Ill. : University of Illinois Press, 1995. x, 214 p. ISBN 0252064674 No price given. LC94- 35580. Based on a series of lectures on "The theology of animal rights" which he gave in 1993 at Oxford and is a reworking of his major papers in the field of animals, theology, and ethics over the last eight years. He feels the animal rights movement needs theology to save itself from its own degeneration into moralism and self-righteousness. He is the special professor of theology at the Univ. of Nottingham, holds the first (academic) fellowship devoted to theology and animal welfare, the International Fund for Animal Welfare Senior Research Fellowship at Mansfield College, Oxford Univ.; has written 14 books on theology and ethics, including several on animal rights and welfare. Chapters are: Reverence for life, responsibility to animals, and rights of animals; Moral priority of the weak; Humans as the servant species; Liberation theology for animals; Animal rights and parasitical nature; Animal experiments as un-godly sacrifices; Hunting as the anti-gospel of predation; Vegetarianism as a biblical ideal; Genetic engineering as animal slavery. Book includes an annotated bibliography (p. 174-201) and index. (Chapter on vegetarianism appeared in ar-news recently, but don't recall if any attribution was made to this book or whether other parts of the book were discussed). =============================================================================== From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.edinburgh.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 15-FEB-1995 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: list of subscribers Here is the list of subscribers to APPLIED-ETHOLOGY as of 6th February. Corrections to Joe Stookey, please, not to me. Thanks to Joe, too, for all his work in servicing the network. Mike 115 LEENA.AHOLA@MESSI.UKU.FI (Leena Ahola) 212 P_ALBERS@NICI.KUN.NL (Paul C. H. Albers) 247 JALBRIGH@HUB.ANSC.PURDUE.EDU (Jack Albright) 5 BO.ALGERS@HHYG.SLU.SE (Bo Algers) 79 MARILU@HYGVAX.SLU.SE (Maria.Alonso-Spilsbury) 123 DCANDERSON@UCDAVIS.EDU (David C. Anderson) 53 MAPPLEBY@SRV0.BIO.EDINBURGH.AC.UK (Mike Appleby) 177 CARAVE@CC.USU.EDU (Clive Arave) 159 ARNOLDC@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU (Cheryl Arnold) 214 IRISBACH@WILD.UNIZH.CH (Iris Bachmann) 276 MORTEN.BAKKEN@NLH10.NLH.NO (Morten Bakken) 218 BALDELLO@FARMACIA.UB.ES (Maribel Baldellou) 274 BARNETTJ@WOODY.AGVIC.GOV.AU (J. L. Barnett) 92 LBARTOS@CSEARN.BITNET (Ludek Bartos) 113 BTB305@BTR0X1.HRZ.UNI-BAYREUTH.DE (Ruediger Beer) 187 NAB41367@UXA.CSO.UIUC.EDU (Nell Bekiares) 104 BEKOFFM@SPOT.COLORADO.EDU (Marc Bekoff) 229 BERGERON@SASK.USASK.CA (Rene Bergeron) 301 BILLINGS@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU (Heather Billings) 310 HBJERSTE@GPU.SRV.UALBERTA.CA (Heather Bjerstedt) 183 ABLAISDE@KENTVM.KENT.EDU (Aaron Blaisdell) 173 BLOKHUIS@IVO.AGRO.NL (Harry Blokhuis) 91 AN83119@MDACC.MDA.UTH.TMC.EDU (Mollie Bloomsmith) 80 K.E.BOE@ITF.NLH.NO (Knut Boe) 180 GBOGGS@ATQM.ADVTECH.USWEST.COM (George Boggs) 145 XAVIER@CLERMONT.INRA.FR (Xavier Boivin) 284 MARYB@LAB0.VET.EDINBURGH.AC.UK (Mary Booth) 39 KEN@WUDCM.WUSTL.EDU (Ken Boschert) 275 BJARNE.BRAASTAD@NLH10.NLH.NO (Bjarne Braastad) 63 RHB11@HERMES.CAMBRIDGE.AC.UK (Harry Bradshaw) 163 BRAITHWAITEL@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA (Leah Braithwaite) 208 H.V.BUDGEY@OPEN.AC.UK (H.V.Budgey) 249 FBURNETT@UNZA.ZM (F Burnett) 56 DI-BUSHONG@TAMU.EDU (Diana Bushong) 259 BUSSEY@PRIMATE.WISC.EDU (Bussey) 105 AA266@CLEVELAND.FREENET.EDU (Desh Cameron) 99 NZPZR009@SIVM.SI.EDU (Kathy Carlstead) 10 CASTREN@EKK1.VETMED.FI (Heli Castren) 200 VCHAPMAN@U.WASHINGTON.EDU (Valerie Chapman) 41 HWCHEN@FESTIVAL.EDINBURGH.AC.UK (Hui-Wen "Kris" Chen) 179 CHIMES.MARILYN@igate.abbott.com (Marilyn Chimes) 138 CHRISTISON@ADMIN.USASK.CA (Iain Christison) 261 JSCHURCH@EWORLD.COM (John S. Church) 50 CLASSEN@ADMIN.USASK.CA (Hank Classen) 42 MSC@CASTLE.EDINBURGH.AC.UK (Michael Cockram) 58 BXC10@PSUVM.PSU.EDU (Brenda Coe) 149 JC1@SUNMUW1.MUW.EDU (Jonathan Cole) 55 COLWELL@ABRSLE.AGR.CA (Doug Colwell) 84 LCONNOR@BLDGAGRIC.LAN1.UMANITOBA.CA (Lauri Connor) 45 VOLESS@CASTLE.EDINBURGH.AC.UK (Jonathan Cooper) 86 DACSERM@PRFSIO.BIO.UNIPR.IT (Davide Csermely) 240 DEREKC@LAB0.VET.EDINBURGH.AC.UK (Derek Cuddeford) 74 ANJWD@TTACS.TTU.EDU (Jeff Dailey) 131 JEDAY@CASTLE.EDINBURGH.AC.UK (J. E. Day) 48 FRANCIEN.DEJONGE@ETHO.VH.WAU.NL (Francien DeJonge) 299 RJD@ITE.AC.UK (Richard Delahay) 283 DEPASSILLEAM@EM.AGR.CA (Anne Marie de Passille) 198 JDEPOYST@ESUSDA.GOV (Jerry Depoyster) 206 E.DOUAZE@DIALUP.FRANCENET.FR (E.Douaze) 103 TENDERLY@LTK.UNIZH.CH (Matthias Duerschlag) 243 MDUMAS@MHC.MTHOLYOKE.EDU (M. Dumas) 8 IDUNCAN@APS.UOGUELPH.CA (Ian Duncan) 220 J.EDDISON@PLYMOUTH.AC.UK (J. Eddison) 27 INGVAR.EKESBO@HHYG.SLU.SE (Ingvar Ekesbo) 54 LOTTA.EKSTRAND@HHYG.SLU.SE (Charlotte Ekstrand) 90 MELISSA_A_EMERY@LEARNLINK.EMORY.EDU (Melissa A. Emery) 238 BENNY_EREZ@UMAIL.UMD.EDU (Benny Erez) 132 HWE@CASTLE.EDINBURGH.AC.UK (H. Erhard) 22 BA1ESOVI@CC.UCO.ES (Inma Estevez) 263 U8421AB@SUNMAIL.LRZ-MUENCHEN.DE (Cornelia Exner) 23 FAURE@TOURS.INRA.FR (Jean Faure) 185 HILARYF@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Hilary Feldman) 219 NF16@UMAIL.UMD.EDU (Nancy J. Fiscus) 158 AFISHER@HQ.TEAGASC.IE (A. Fisher) 225 J.M.FORBES@LEEDS.AC.UK (J. M. Forbes) 68 BJORN.FORKMAN@HHYG.SLU.SE (Bjorn Forkman) 20 PSYC0182@WAIKATO.AC.NZ (Mary Foster) 237 FRANK@DECVAX.PURINA-MILLS.COM (Bob Frank) 6 AG150AB@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA (David Fraser) 35 T-FRIEND@TAMU.EDU (Ted Friend) 170 FROHOFF@NETCOM.COM (Toni or Jim Frohoff) 264 INGERLISE@NLH10.NLH.NO (Inger Lise Furnhaug) 234 SGADBOIS@AC.DAL.CA (Simon Gadbois) 73 FAG12@PHOENIX.CAMBRIDGE.AC.UK (Francisco Galindo-Maldanado) 193 COLLEEN.GARBE@MED.UMICH.EDU (Colleen Garbe) 26 JANE.GEISMAR@HHYG.SLU.SE (Jane Geismar) 169 MGERKEN@GWDG.DE (M. Gerken) 231 N.A.GEVERINK@IVO.AGRO.NL (N.A.Geverink) 119 NAG1001@HERMES.CAM.AC.UK (Nicoline A. Geverink) 285 METTE.GIERSING@LMV.SLU.SE (Mette Giersing) 196 JNRCC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Linda Goodloe) 3 GONYOU@SASK.USASK.CA (Harold Gonyou) 199 GREENBER@TWSUVM.UC.TWSU.EDU (Gary Greenberg) 112 MI411@MLURI.SARI.AC.UK (Phil Grigor) 142 PGROVE@MANVAX.CC.MANCOL.EDU (Patricia Grove) 152 FEDERICO.GUILLEN@UV.ES (Federico Guillen) 28 STEFAN.GUNNARSSON@HHYG.SLU.SE (Stefan Gunnarsson) 191 NILS.HAGEN@KJEMI.SINTEF.NO (Nils Hagen) 178 SHALE@DEKALB.DC.PEACHNET.EDU (Steven L. Hale) 286 DHALEY@APS.UOGUELPH.CA (D Haley) 186 DHAMILTN@UTKVX.UTK.EDU (David Bradford Hamilton) 96 MI279@MLURI.SARI.AC.UK (Alison Hanlon) 37 LLH%SVIN%HUSDYR1@SH1.FOULUM.MIN.DK ( Laurits Lydehoj Hansen) 2 HARRISM@SASK.USASK.CA (Moira Harris) 49 HARRISONK@SASK.USASK.CA (Karen Harrison) 153 LAHART@UCDAVIS.EDU (L. A. Hart) 43 ESA117@ED.SACINBURGH.AC.UK (Marie Haskell) 141 SYH@ULTRIXA.ABER.AC.UK (Suzanne Held) 273 HEMSWORT%WOODY.AGNGM@POSTY.AGVIC.GOV.AU (Paul Hemsworth) 226 CHEWSON@OVCNET.UOGUELPH.CA (Caroline Hewson) 140 MPH@ULTRIXA.ABER.AC.UK (Peter Hinxman) 59 H.HOPSTER@IVO.AGRO.NL (Hans Hopster) 245 KAH3@CORNELL.EDU (Katherine Houpt) 143 JHOWE@SEAGRANT.ACENET.AUBURN.EDU (Jeff Howe) 232 RHUDSON@ANSCI.UALBERTA.CA (Robert J. Hudson) 255 MH173@UMAIL.UMD.EDU (Michael Hutchins) 289 MARTINE.JANZEN@PILOT.STUDENT.WAU.NL (Martine Janzen) 290 ALICEJ@LAB0.VET.EDINBURGH.AC.UK (Alice Jarvis) 156 KHJ%SVIN%HUSDYR1@SH1.FOULUM.MIN.DK (Karin Hjelholt Jensen) 31 MBJ%KVAEG%HUSDYR1@SH1.FOULUM.MIN.DK (Margit Bak Jensen) 14 PER.JENSEN@HHYG.SLU.SE (Per Jensen) 33 RWJOHN@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (Rodney Johnson) 222 ROY.JONES@BRIS.AC.UK (Roy Jones) 298 MJONES@APS.UOGUELPH.CA (M Jones) 311 SVJ1@CORNELL.EDU (Soraya V Juarbe-Diaz) 127 PETER@RMY.EMORY.EDU (Peter G. Judge) 75 JESSESM@UNCG.BITNET (Michael J. Justice) 69 EPKARDAS@SAUMAG.EDU (Edward P. Kardas) 266 AKASSAY@TITAN.UCS.UMASS.EDU (Alice C. Kassay) 24 KATZ@ZODIAC.RUTGERS.EDU (Larry Katz) 76 LINDA@HYGVAX.SLU.SE (Linda Keeling) 257 SARAH.KEER-KEER@AFRC.AC.UK (Sarah Keer-Keer) 62 MJK1000@CUS.CAM.AC.UK (Mark Kennedy) 244 JPKENT@IRLEARN.UCD.IE (John P. Kent) 215 KILIMNJARO@AOL.COM (Kilimanjaro) 270 E.KINNAIRD@MAILBOX.UQ.OZ.AU (Emily Kinnaird) 213 JOERGEN=KJAER%MH%HUSDYR@SH1.FOULUM.MIN.DK (Joergen Kjaer) 83 TOBY.KNOWLES@BRISTOL.AC.UK (Toby Knowles) 30 PAUL.KOENE@ETHO.VH.WAU.NL (Paul Koene) 66 MKREGER@NALUSDA.GOV (M. Kreger) 120 CHR.=KROHN%KVAEG%HUSDYR1@SH1.FOULUM.MIN.DK (C. Krohn) 36 D-LAY@TAMU.EDU (Donald Lay) 277 REBECCA.LEDGER@BRUNEL.AC.UK (Rebecca Ledger) 168 PLN@CLERMONT.INRA.FR (Pierre Le Neindre) 291 DENYSE.LEVESQUE@FMED.ULAVAL.CA (Denyse Levesque) 262 LENA.LIDFORS@HASSLE.SE.ASTRA.COM (Lena Lidfors) 77 SLINE@PHS.BGSM.WFU.EDU (Scott Line) 150 ZLOU@APS.UoGuelph.CA (Zhensheng Lou) 102 ALUND@ZI.KU.DK (Anders Lund) 134 LHENLEY@SUNMUW1.MUW.EDU (Lani Lyman-Henley) 139 MAINA@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU (Daniela Maina) 82 KERSTIN.MALM@HHYG.SLU.SE (Kerstin Malm) 116 CEM1008@PHX.CAM.AC.UK (Caroline Manser) 11 JNM13@PHX.CAM.AC.UK (Jeremy Marchant) 17 GJM10@PHOENIX.CAMBRIDGE.AC.UK (Georgia Mason) 9 SUMNERR@RUAKURA.CRI.NZ (Lindsay Matthews) 78 MICHAEL@HYGVAX.SLU.SE (Michael Mayntz) 137 TINA@WAIKATO.AC.NZ (Tina McAdie) 272 SEBM@LAB0.VET.EDINBURGH.AC.UK (Sebastian McBride and co.) 287 REPRO@NBC.UPENN.EDU (Sue McDonnell) 93 ANJJM@TTACS.TTU.EDU (John McGlone) 280 LVPDMCG@SSA.BRISTOL.AC.UK. (Paul D. McGreevy) 241 UNV039@ED.SAC.AC.UK (Gordon McLeod) 130 EMCMAHON@CATTELL.PSYCH.UPENN.EDU (Elise McMahon) 106 PATMELESE@AOL.COM (Pat Melese) 184 WINDSORM@AOL.COM (Lorraine Meller) 7 JM59@UMAIL.UMD.EDU (Joy A. Mench) 18 ESA017@ED.SAC.AC.UK (Mike Mendl) 269 SMILLMAN@APS.UOGUELPH.CA (S Millman) 16 MILLS@TOURS.INRA.FR (Andrew Mills) 204 GMIRACLE@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (Glenn. E. Miracle) 188 GDMITCHELL@UCDAVIS.EDU (Gary. D. Mitchell) 189 HMIZOHAT@NIKE.HEIDELBERG.EDU (Hidetaka Mizohata) 32 AMOORE@ILSTU.EDU (Aaron Moore) 117 CM140@UMAIL.UMD.EDU (Cassandra M. Moore) 216 KATHLEEN_MORGAN@WHEATONMA.EDU (Kathleen Morgan) 265 MORRISJI@GOV.ON.CA (Jim Morris) 167 JMORROW@HUB.ANSC.PURDUE.EDU (Julie Morrow-Tesch) 109 MORTONDB@BHAM.AC.UK (David B. Morton) 65 MOSS@PINUS.SLU.SE (Ingrid Mossberg) 51 LENE=MUNKSGAARD%KVAEG%HUSDYR1@SH1.FOULUM.MIN.DK (L.Munksgaard) 4 NEWBERRY@BCRSAG.AGR.CA (Ruth Newberry) 271 C.J.NICOL@BRIS.AC.UK (C. J. Nicol) 88 AJN1000@PHX.CAM.AC.UK (Amanda Nimon) 46 MURN@URIACC.URI.EDU (Murn M. Nippo) 71 NOLDUS@RCL.WAU.NL (Lucas P. J. J. Noldus) 148 HOESTER@IVI.CH (Hans Oester) 34 OLFERT@SASK.USASK.CA (Ernest Olfert) 60 PAJORE@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA (Ed Pajor) 160 BPEARCE@ISDTCP2.HWC.CA (Bill Pearce) 144 PETER.PENNING@AFRC.AC.UK (Peter Penning) 6 AG150AB@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA (Peter Phillips) 133 LPINHEIRO@APS.UOGUELPH.CA (Luiz Carlos Pinheiro Machado Filho) 162 K.PLAXTON@ELSEVIER.NL (Ken C. Plaxton) 12 ALP18@PHX.CAM.AC.UK (Anthony Podberscek) 87 POLLARDJ@AGRESEARCH.CRI.NZ (Jo Pollard) 256 TREVOR.POOLE@UCL.AC.UK (Trevor Poole) 294 S.J.POPE@BRISTOL.AC.UK (S. J. Pope) 61 DPOWELL@ZOOL.UMD.EDU (David Powell) 57 EOPRICE@UCDAVIS.EDU (Edward O. Price) 108 MPRICE@VM.UCS.UALBERTA.CA (Mick Price) 207 NRAMLACH@APS.UoGuelph.CA (Nicole Ramlachan) 44 HDRANDLE@EXETER.AC.UK (Hayley Randle) 293 RICHARD.RANFT@BL.UK (Richard Ranft) 194 ESRATHMAN@UALR.EDU (Eric S. Rathman) 89 INGRID.REDBO@HUV.SLU.SE (Ingrid Redbo) 114 MRENNER@WCUPA.EDU (Michael Renner) 227 DARAJM@HOOKUP.NET (Derek Rice) 312 ROBITAIL@NICKEL.LAURENTIAN.CA (Jean-Francois Robitaille) 166 IR10000@HERMES.CAM.AC.UK (Irene Rochlitz) 64 J_RODRIGUEZ%CUTPO@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU (J. Rodriguez) 95 APN6RGR@LEEDS.AC.UK (Richard Rodway) 13 ARR10@PHX.CAM.AC.UK (Andrew Rudd) 236 M.A.W.RUIS@IVO.AGRO.NL (M.A.W.Ruis) 25 RUSHENJ@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA (Jeff Rushen) 239 KARINS@TPHYS.NOV.UNI-BAYREUTH.DE (Karin S.) 40 SALONIEM@EKK1.VETMED.FI (Hannu Saloniemi) 98 PSAND@COCO.IHI.KU.DK (P. Sandoe) 202 BART@BDV.DGK.RUU.NL (Bart Savenije) 223 PSAVOIE@DISCOVERY.COM (P. Savoie) 192 MS3@UKC.AC.UK (M.Scahill) 242 SCHILDER@NEURETP.BIOL.RUU.NL (Schilder) 135 ASCHMITT@MOOSE.UVM.EDU (A. Schmitt) 15 WILLEM.SCHOUTEN@ETHO.VH.WAU.NL (Willem Schouten) 201 SCHRADER@ZEDAT.FU-BERLIN.DE (Lars Schrader) 29 SCHWARTZKOPF@SASK.USASK.CA (Karen Schwartzkopf) 174 ERIKS@EPAUS.ISLAND.NET (Erik Scoffield) 300 GRAHAMS@UCSCARB.AC.UK (Graham Scott) 165 SHANNON.SCOTT@SAN.ULAVAL.CA (Shannon Scott) 157 SERPELL@POBOX.UPENN.EDU (James A. Serpell) 233 CHRIS.SHERWIN@BRIS.AC.UK (Chris Sherwin) 129 SHULL.ELIZABETH@HOSPITAL.VET.UTK.EDU (Elizabeth Shull) 85 SIGNORET@TOURS.INRA.FR (P. J. Signoret) 246 HESIH3@WPTEMP.KVL.DK (Henrik Simonsen) 47 CSMITH@NALUSDA.GOV (Cynthia Smith) 224 J.SMITH@WYE.LON.AC.UK (J. Smith) 281 NY6@CU.NIH.GOV (Darlene Smucny) 288 MSPECTOR@CMED.CMO.WASHINGTON.EDU (Michele Spector) 164 SPENSLEY.SPENSLEY-NIAEA@AFRC.AC.UK (Janet Spensley) 19 VUZV1@CSEARN.BITNET (Marek Spinka) 124 K.J.STAFFORD@MASSEY.AC.NZ (K. J. Stafford) 1 STOOKEY@SASK.USASK.CA (Joseph M. Stookey) 176 STRAFFORD@ANSCI.UALBERTA.CA (Laraine Strafford) 121 William_R_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu (William Ray Stricklin) 171 JSWANSON@OZ.OZNET.KSU.EDU (Janice Swanson) 70 ATAYLOR@APS.UOGUELPH.CA (Allison Taylor) 230 LMDLT@LMD.ERICSSON.SE (Lars Tegnander) 136 PSYC0125@WAIKATO.AC.NZ (Bill Temple) 221 TTENNESSEN@AS.NSAC.NS.CA (Tarjei Tennessen) 154 LTEPPER@SUNBURN.LIUNET.EDU (Lois M. Tepper) 67 TERLOUW@CLERMONT.INRA.FR (Claudia Terlouw) 295 TODDI@AFRC.AC.UK (Ian Todd) 211 CATHY.THOMPSON@MED.UMICH.EDU (Catherine Thompson) 228 THOMPSON.189@OSU.EDU (S. B. Thompson) 203 KTT@MATH.BERKELEY.EDU (Karen Thurston) 94 F.TOATES@OPEN.AC.UK (Fred Toates) 282 MARC@STAT.FMV.ULG.AC.BE (Marc Vandenheede) 278 PDKAIO@POBOX.RUU.NL (Helen Vande Weerd) 122 VANTRESS@LAMAR.COLOSTATE.EDU (Stephanie Vantress Bestelmeyer) 81 APN6MAV@LEEDS.AC.UK (Mike Varley) 161 H.M.VERMEER@PV.AGRO.NL (H. M. Vermeer) 209 GISLI@HAFRO.IS (Gisli A. Vikingsson) 182 VINCENT@UHUNIX.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU (Douglas Vincent) 146 ITPAN@MLUCOM2.URZ.UNI-HALLE.DE (Ebby von Borell) 100 J.J.B.WADHAM@BHAM.AC.UK (J. J. B. Wadham) 297 WALKER@CORTEX.HEALTH.UFL.EDU (Walker) 101 WALTL@MAIL.BOKU.AC.AT (Birgit Waltl) 107 NWARAN@SRV0.BIO.ED.AC.UK (Natalie Waran) 210 WATTSJON@DUKE.USASK.CA (Jon Watts) 6 AG150AB@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA (Dan Weary) 217 BWEBSTER@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (Bruce Webster ) 110 BWECHSLER@ESH.UNIBE.CH (Beat Wechsler) 304 ESA032@ED.SAC.AC.UK (Francoise Wemelsfelder) 126 FACWHITE@RIC.EDU (Duncan White) 197 KWICKER@ARIEL.TAMU.EDU (Kristy Wicker) 21 TWIDOWSKI@APS.UOGUELPH.CA (Tina Widowski) 175 WIERENGA@IVO.AGRO.NL (Herman Wierenga) 195 WCS14@TRANSIT.NYSER.NET (Wildlife Conservation Society) (John Iaderosa, Sharon Reilly, Von Kment, James Tamarack, Jeff Spratt, Dan Beetem and Robert Lessnau) 181 LWILLIAM@JAGUAR1.USOUTHAL.EDU (Lawerence E. William) 97 MARGRET.WULBERS-MINDERMANN@HHYG.SLU.SE (M. Wulbers) 155 U8421AA@SUNMAIL.LRZ-MUENCHEN.DE (Adroaldo Zanella) 118 ADROALDO.ZANELLA@ZUCHT.TIERMEDIZIN.UNI-MUENCHEN.D400.DE 205 EZ10001@CUS.CAM.AC.UK (Endi Zhang) 38 APETHDST@URIACC.URI.EDU () 52 ZOOTVE2@IMICILEA.CILEA.IT () 72 BASOLO@LIFESCI.LSCF.UCSB.EDU () 111 AJZ10@PHX.CAM.AC.UK () 125 K652830@CZHRZU1A.BITNET () 128 HSUMIN@CC.NSYSU.EDU.TW () 147 MARKEL@CGI.NSK.SU () 151 SMRBB@BBSRC.AC.UK () 190 WWOJDAK@BGNET.BGSU.EDU () 235 H94347@COX.NSAC.NS.CA () 248 DELUDE@HG.ULETH.CA. () 250 SKATHNEL@GPU.SRV.UALBERTA.CA () 251 UNV044@ED.SAC.AC.UK () 252 FMSCALZO@LIFE.UAMS.EDU () 253 ESA099@ED.SAC.AC.UK () 254 EHEKKALA@CASMAIL.CALACADEMY.ORG () 258 LSR1000@CUS.CAM.AC.UK () 260 LPCZOO@DEPAULO.BITNET () 267 VALEDAS@AOL.COM () 268 I22609@SINET.AD.JP () 279 LVCJN@SSA.BRISTOL.AC.UK () 292 JRML@DML.AC.UK () 296 BUENGER@TZV.FAL.DE () 302 ZERBE@TZV.FAL.DE () 303 ABECK@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU () 305 UNV027@ESAVAX.ED.AC.UK () 306 UNV032@ESAVAX.ED.AC.UK () 307 RACORN@APS.UOGUELPH.CA () 308 BREUERK@WOODY.AGVIC.GOV.AU () 309 SEBBEL@CIPFB5.BIOLOGIE.UNI-OSNABRUECK.DE () From: IN%"di-bushong@tamu.edu" 15-FEB-1995 08:25:26.31 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: females in ethology There were two pertinent questions about my request 1. whether I am only interested in women in the U.S.?? A definite No. All women everywhere. 2. whether I am interested in students??? Always. I believe it will be good for them to see as wide a range and spectrum of responses as possible. I wish to let them know that women scientists are doing the job, what kinds of jobs we're doing, and a little bit about what it took (education-wise) to get we are. I believe also that women currently working on degrees shows some of the different levels of progress. I've been getting great responses already. Thanks so much for your cooperation and interest. You've all increased my enthusiasm 1000- fold!!!!!! Diana Bushong Texas A&M University Applied Ethology (or Animal Euthenics depending on the time of day) email address: di-bushong@tamu.edu ============================================================================== From: IN%"di-bushong@tamu.edu" 15-FEB-1995 08:40:12.85 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: females in ethology There were two pertinent questions about my request 1. whether I am only interested in women in the U.S.?? A definite No. All women everywhere. 2. whether I am interested in students??? Always. I believe it will be good for them to see as wide a range and spectrum of responses as possible. I wish to let them know that women scientists are doing the job, what kinds of jobs we're doing, and a little bit about what it took (education-wise) to get we are. I believe also that women currently working on degrees shows some of the different levels of progress. I've been getting great responses already. Thanks so much for your cooperation and interest. You've all increased my enthusiasm 1000- fold!!!!!! Diana Bushong Texas A&M University Applied Ethology (or Animal Euthenics depending on the time of day) email address: di-bushong@tamu.edu ============================================================================== From: IN%"RobertsE@newschool.edu" "Evelyn Roberts" 15-FEB-1995 09:29:52.40 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: "IN THE COMPANY OF ANIMALS," a cross-disciplinary conference designed to explore the complex and increasingly controversial relationship between humans and other animals, will be held on April 6, 7, and 8, 1995, at the New School for Social Research in New York City. Questions about our relationship to animals have been fueled in recent years by animal rights activism, the ecology movement, and new discoveries in biology, psychology, and other sciences, generating political, religious, social, and economic schisms. The conference will feature seven sessions in which leading scientists and humanists consider animal-human relationships down through the ages, thereby giving interested scholars, professionals, and laymen an historical and cultural framework from which to consider some of the difficult moral, social, and policy questions currently being raised about our relationships to animals. The conference has been organized by Professor Arien Mack, editor of Social Research: An International Quarterly of the Social Sciences. Admission to the conference is free, but registration is required. The conference will be held in the Tishman Auditorium at The New School (66 West 12th Street, New York City). To request a brochure, to register, or for more information: call 212-229-2488, fax 212-229-5476, e-mail to robertse@newschool.edu, or write to "In the Company of Animals," Social Research, New School for Social Research, 65 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003. For information about special conference hotel rates, call the Doral Hotels Reservations Office (212-685-1100 or 800-22DORAL) and ask for information about special rates at the Doral Park Avenue (Park Avenue and 38th Street) for the "In the Company of Animals" conference (reservations must be made no later than 21 March). ============================================================================= From: IN%"hesih3@wptemp.kvl.dk" 17-FEB-1995 03:47:37.46 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAE's Council of Europe Fund Dear All. ISAE President Harold Gonyou recently informed us, that Council of Europe has invited ISAE as an expert also on the discussions of companion animal welfare, similar to our participation in discussions on farm and laboratory animals. It is my opinion, that the constitutional aims of the Society includes companion animals. Therfore I feel it important that ISAE continuously offers expert advice to Council of Europe. In fact I already have send "fund-raising letters" to potential donators including the companion animal aspect. Please find below a copy of this letter. If any of you after reading this, can provide me with names and addresses of potential donators be it persons, firms or organizations this will be highly appreciated. Yours sincerely Henrik B. Simonsen, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen. E-mail: HESIH3@wptemp.kvl.dk 1995 ISAE EXPERT ADVICE TO THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS. ______________________________________________________________ International Society for Applied Ethology founded in 1966 (formerly Society for Veterinary Ethology) is a rapidly growing organization of scientists interested in applied ethology in a broad sense. The aims of the society are specially directed to: 1. encourage and support basic and applied research into the behaviour of animals as related to the use of animals by humans. This includes eg. domestic, laboratory and companion animals. 2. provide an international forum for scientists. 3. encourage the teaching of animal behaviour. 4. provide a pool of expertise to government, industry and animal welfare organizations. The subject matter of our conferences has been all animals kept by or affected by man. Most research is devoted towards the behaviour of farm animals but increasing proportions of our members are interested in pet animals, and some papers on zoo animals, laboratory animals and wild animals, including pests, has been given. Following the entering into force of the European Convention of the Protection of Farm Animals in 1978 a Standing Committee has been set up and the ISAE (SVE) was invited to join its meetings as an expert. The expert cannot vote but otherwise he can and does play a full and effective part in the Committee's work, reading and submitting evidence and taking part in the discussions of the Committee. So far the Standing Committee has elaborated recommendations concerning egg-laying hens, pigs, fur animals, cattle, sheep and goats and recently an amendment to the Convention regarding animal welfare implications of biotechnology has been adopted. At the moment also the welfare of laboratory animals is on the agenda. For that purpose a laboratory animal expert from ISAE attends the meetings. There have previously been discussions on the welfare of pet animals and, should it be necessary the Society can offer an expertise on this subject also. Unfortunately the Council of Europe is unable to finance the ISAE expert's attendance to the meetings in Strasbourg in any way sothat travel and subsistence expenses have to be met from the Society's meagre funds augmented by donations from a number of individuals and organisations. Indeed, were it not for the receipt of several substantial sums, the Strasbourg work would not have continued as long as it has. The Society is extremely grateful to those who already contributed. It is for this reason that we are attempting to set up a special fund. And so we urgently ask if you will be prepared to act as one of our sponsors to help toward our costs. We hope that you will feel this possible and can make either a donation or, preferably, an annual commitment to our Society, however small, in order that we can carry out the task set before us. Such financial commitment will, of course, be openly acknowledged. If you want more information please write to me. My address is Department of Animal Science and Animal Health. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural Univertsity. B?lowsvej 13, DK 1870 Frederiksberg C. Denmark. To save money on transfer charges, donations should preferably be sent directly to the ISAE's Honorary Treasurer: Dr. M. Mendl, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB3 OES, United Kingdom. Thanking you for taking the trouble for reading this letter I send my best regards Yours sincerely, H.B.Simonsen. Ass. prof., DVM, DV.Sci. ============================================================================= From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.edinburgh.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 17-FEB-1995 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Council of Europe Dear All Henrik Simonsen's appeal for possible donors to support ISAE's work for the Council of Europe is as important as ever. There was one minor mistake: the ISAE treasurer has changed address: Dr Mike Mendl, GABS, SAC-Edinburgh, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0QE, UK. Tel (44) 31 445 4811, Fax (44) 31 445 5687, Email ESA017@ED.SAC.AC.UK Mike Appleby (ISAE Secretary) ============================================================================= From: IN%"schilder@neuretp.biol.ruu.nl" 17-FEB-1995 10:01:54.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: soft paws for cats to all. The american company Pet-ag Inc. produces so-called soft-paws, that are glued on the nails of cats in order to prevent damage to furniture by scratching behaviour.Does someone has positive or negative experience with these soft-paws?. Does someone has knowledge of publications or so on this subject. I would be glad to hear. dr Matthijs Schilder Ethology and Socio-ecology, University of Utrecht PO box 80.086 3508 TB Utrecht Netherlands ============================================================================== From: IN%"psand@coco.ihi.ku.dk" 17-FEB-1995 10:23:57.04 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"nhol@coco.ihi.ku.dk" Subj: more transgenic ethics Per Jensen kindly tries to reject the arguments that Nils Holtug and I (Peter Sandoee) present to the effect that animal welfare is the only ethically relevant issue concerning transgenic animals. Per says that he thinks our article is too superfluous (sic!). I have been wondering a lot what he means by this; and I have come to the conclusion that he thinks it is too superficial. He may be right in this; but I donUt think that he has done anything to prove it. Holtug and I claim that there is no ethically relevant difference between genetic manipulation by means of traditional breeding and genetic manipulation by means of transgenesis. Against this Per tries to show ways in which the two techniques differ from each other. However to show that there is a difference is not to show that there is an ethically relevant difference. An example may serv to illustrate what I have in mind: I have sometimes claimed that there is no ethically relevant difference between causing a rat to suffer and causing a dog to suffer. To reject this claim it is surely not enough to argue that a rat is not the same creature as a dog! Thus even if it is being proved that Jeff is not right in his claim that mutations play an important role in ordinary breeding, it has not been proved that there is an ethically relevant difference between breeding and transgenesis. When he points to ways in which breeding and transgenesis differ from each other Per points to consequences of transgenesis which seem to result in welfare problems for the animals. What he seems to do is to argue, that transgenesis will lead to welfare problems which are either of a new kind or are more serious that those encountered as a consequence of traditional breeding. Having recently dealt with welfare problems in broiler production I - like Ian Duncan - am a bit sceptical about this claim. But let me for the sake of argument grant Per that transgenesis will lead to different and more serious welfare problems. How in the world is this going to challenge the view that welfare is what matters in ethical assessments of transgenesis? To put it quite crudely PerUs argument seems to run like this: Nils and Peter say that the only problems raised by transgenesis are welfare- problems. They are wrong because transgenesis will lead to new and serious welfare problems! I would very much like to be corrected in my interpretation of PerUs argument! Per is of course right that if the welfare problems are of a new and more serious kind, new and stricter kinds of rules may be in order. He is also right that transgenic animals may be a test-case for discussing what we mean by welfare. I think we should discuss these issues. But first we should find out whether transgenesis gives rise to serious ethical issues other than those having to with welfare (animal welfare and human safety). Yours sincerely, Peter Sandoe psand@coco.ihi.ku.dk ============================================================================= From: IN%"mrenner@wcupa.edu" "Renner, Michael" 17-FEB-1995 14:02:10.08 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology List'" CC: Subj: Gorilla clowns OK, I've got to know. I was just forwarded the item below as purportedly true. Has anybody else heard this, or heard that it's a hoax? Thanks, Michael Renner MRenner@Wcupa.Edu ------------------------------------------- Newswire Item 3/2/94: A hunter in Uganda is being sought by local authorities for illegally hunting gorillas. He shoots them with a tranquilizer gun and dresses them in clown suits. So far six (6) gorillas have been found wandering around in this condition. A Ugandan spokesman stated that this was a person with a truly sick sense of humor. They felt this was a cruel practice, since they had to tranquilize the gorillas again to take the suits off! ========================================================================== From: IN%"H.K.WIERENGA@ID.AGRO.NL" "Herman Wierenga" 20-FEB-1995 03:59:59.57 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: chinchilla welfare Following an earlier message with a request for information about welfare of chinchilla's kept for production of fur, I now can inform you that an english version of an advice on chinchilla farming is available. Piet Wiepkema was asked by us (Ministry of Agriculture) for such a report. Those who are interested in this advice can ask me to send a copy. Herman K. Wierenga ============================================================================== From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 20-FEB-1995 09:43:18.57 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RSPCA conference (forwarded message) Message from AR-TALK: Forwarded message begins: ____________________________________________________________________ Subj: RSPCA Conference The Political Animal 1st April 1995 Organized by RSPCA & University of Kent Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, Kent `This is believed to be the first conference to address animal welfare from the standpoint of the social sciences. Speakers will examine society's attitudes towards animals, the psychology of active protest, international comparisons, the historical perspective and the changing political status of animals. The conference is intended to be of interest particularly to anthropologists, sociologists, historians, psuchologists, political scientists and professional animal welfarists' Speakers include Alan Clark MP, RIchard RYder, Robert Garner, Mike Radford Contact Dr Ruth Cromie, DICE, University, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7PD Registration fee 15 sterling (includes lunch) ____________________________________________________________ end of forwarded message. =============================================================================== From: IN%"lhenley@sunmuw1.muw.edu" "Lani Lyman-Henley" 20-FEB-1995 To: IN%"schilder@neuretp.biol.ruu.nl" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: soft paws for cats A friend of mine has used these "claw caps" on his cats, and really liked them. He said that they were effective for saving furniture etc., and since they grew/came off he didn't have to worry so much about the cat's being "handicapped" should it get out of its completely indoor existence. (He was quite anti-declawing for these reasons). I never saw them in action, so this is completely second-hand information. *********************************************************************** Lani Lyman-Henley, PhD email: lhenley@sunmuw1.muw.edu Division of Science & Math phone: (601) 329-7381 (office) Mississippi University for Women P.O.Box W 100 Columbus, MS 39701 FAX: (601) 329-7238 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "More than iron, more than lead, more than gold I need electricity. I need it more than I need lamb or pork or lettuce or cucumber. I need it for my dreams." -poetry by Ractor ********************************************************************** From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 21-FEB-1995 08:14:08.59 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Transgenic ethics Mick Price may be right in that most phenotypic changes that occur during evolution are the result of changes in combinations of genes rather than mutations of single genes. However, transgenic changes insert a new gene into the genotype of the species. Surely, in nature, new genes or allelles enter into a species' range of genotypes mainly by mutation. I still maintain that transgenic manipulations are the equivalent of mutation, not of breeding. The `bio-tech' alternative to breeding would be cloning. This technique is used to rapidly increase the number of animals that bear a particular combination of genes. Peter Sandoe and Nils Holtung ask whether the differences between transgenics and breeding are `morally relevant' differences. Surely the answer would depend upon your morals. Some people believe that God created each species separately, and that humans do not have the right to interfere with His or Her work by `blending' species. Since normal breeding rarely involves genetic exchange between species (except for hinnies and other long eared horses!), such people may not be offended by normal breeding but would see transgenics as unethical. Jeff Rushen rushenj@ncccot.agr.ca ============================================================================ From: IN%"ABECK@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU" "ALAN M. BECK" 21-FEB-1995 08:41:02.59 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Cat Declaw There seems to be some interest in cat declawing. Studies here show that declawing has significant value in reducing the risk of Cat Scratch Disease to humans. What is the epidemiologic, behavioral, and ethical literature on declawing. Declawed cats appear to be able to chase, fight and climb trees. Bite incidence appears to be the same in all cats. Is there any real data to the contrary? We neuter and dock--is the line drawn on declaw real or imagined? PURDUE School of Veterinary Medicine phone 317/494-0854 UNIVERSITY West Lafayette, IN 47907-1243 fax 317/494-9830 ============================================================================= From: IN%"SHULL.ELIZABETH@HOSPITAL.VET.UTK.EDU" 21-FEB-1995 09:13:22.65 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Reply to: SOFT PAWS FOR CATS |TAB|In regards to the use of soft-paws: They are a great alternative to declawing. The major drawback is that they sometimes come off very quickly and some cats require a sedative everytime the soft-paws are applied. Which would make them impractical in some situations. For those owners who can learn to apply them to their cats at home they can be very helpful. ============================================================================== From: IN%"SEBM@lab0.vet.edinburgh.ac.uk" "Sebastian McBride & Co." 21-FEB-19 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Info. request ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does anyone know of any organisations, societies etc. concerned primarily with dog behaviour? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"jmorrow@hub.ansc.purdue.edu" 22-FEB-1995 06:26:29.70 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: cattle environmental enrichment Does anybody out there know of any references on environmental enrichment studies performed with cattle (any age)? Any leads would be greatly appreciated. Julie Morrow-Tesch (jmorrow@hub.ansc.purdue.edu) ============================================================================== From: IN%"K.PLAXTON@elsevier.nl" 22-FEB-1995 09:58:11.83 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Contents APPLAN Vol. 42/3 Applied Animal Behaviour Science Vol. 42, No. 3 (1 February 1995) CONTENTS Temporal characteristics of the fox trot, a symmetrical equine gait H.M. Clayton (Saskatchewan, Sask., Canada) and J.W. Bradbury (CO, USA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 The welfare of extensively managed dairy cattle: A review P.H. Hemsworth, J.L. Barnett (Attwood, Vic., Australia), L. Beveridge (Aberdeen, UK) and L.R. Matthews (Hamilton, New Zealand) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Individual differences in suckling and solid food intake by piglets K. Boe (As, Norway) and P. Jensen (Skara, Sweden) . . 183 The effect of food deprivation on the expression of foraging and exploratory behaviour in the growing pig J.E.L. Day, I. Kyriazakis and A.B. Lawrence (Edinburgh, UK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Comparison of the behaviour of goats and sheep on an eroded hill pasture L.A. Greaves and M.E. Wedderburn (Hamilton, New Zealand) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Factor analysis of behavioural tests in farmed silver and blue foxes M. Harri, T. Rekilae and J. Mononen (Kuopio, Finland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 ***************************** Ken Plaxton Elsevier Science B.V. P.O. Box 181 1000 AD Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel: +31 20 485 3332 Fax: +31 20 485 3325 E-mail: k.plaxton@elsevier.nl ***************************** From: IN%"ir10000@hermes.cam.ac.uk" "I. Rochlitz" 22-FEB-1995 12:46:10.86 To: IN%"ABECK@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU" "ALAN M. BECK" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Cat Declaw declawing in cats is regarded as an unecessary mutilation, and is prohibited in the UK, as is tail docking and ear cropping in dogs. For behavioural data, see Morgan M. and Houpt K.A. (1990) feline behaviour Problems: the influence of de-clawing. Anthrozoos 3: 50-53. Irene Rochlitz Dept of Clin Vet Med,Univ of Cambridge.( Could one justify de-teething cats, as they can manage quite well without teeth, and this would stop them biting people?) On Tue, 21 Feb 1995, ALAN M. BECK wrote: > There seems to be some interest in cat declawing. Studies here show that > declawing has significant value in reducing the risk of Cat Scratch Disease > to humans. What is the epidemiologic, behavioral, and ethical literature > on declawing. Declawed cats appear to be able to chase, fight and climb > trees. Bite incidence appears to be the same in all cats. > Is there any real data to the contrary? > We neuter and dock--is the line drawn on declaw real or imagined? > > PURDUE School of Veterinary Medicine phone 317/494-0854 > UNIVERSITY West Lafayette, IN 47907-1243 fax 317/494-9830 > ============================================================================= From: IN%"IDUNCAN@APS.UoGuelph.CA" 22-FEB-1995 13:04:58.10 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Environmental enrichment for cattle Dear All, I would like to add to Julie Morrow-Tesch's question about environmental enrichment for cattle and ask "Is it appropriate even to consider environmental enrichment for cattle?" I worry that sometimes concepts get introduced to our field of interest and then get used indiscriminately either as an explanation for previously unexplained phenomena ("learned helplessness" would be a good recent example) or as a universal solution to many problems (I'm afraid that "environmental enrichment" might be falling into this category). "Environmental enrichment" does seem to have something to offer for some species. My impression is that these are species that naturally show a lot of exploratory behaviour (mice, rats, pigs). My impression also is that cattle (at least cattle that have reached the ruminating stage) do not spend a lot of time in exploration. As hinted at by Julie, perhaps environmental enrichment does have something to offer for calves. I'd like to hear comments. Yours, Ian Duncan ============================================================================= From: IN%"jmorrow@hub.ansc.purdue.edu" 22-FEB-1995 14:39:26.46 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: cattle environmental enrichment In response to Ian Duncan's comment, I think that he is quite right about enrichment for adult animals. I am particularily interested in enrichments for calves. Dairy calves are especially inquisitive and will attempt to suck almost anything. This is the widespread theory behind individual housing for dairy calves. What I really want to find out is if anyone has looked at health and well-being of group housed dairy calves with and without environmental enrichment. Certainly Ann Marie de Passille's work would suggest that this should be done. We must also be ready to find negative consequences of enrichment such as creating sucking/chewing problems in adult animals if motivation for sucking persists due to availability of substrates. Thanks Ian, any other comments are welcome. Julie Morrow-Tesch jmorrow@hub.ansc.purdue.edu ============================================================================ From: IN%"AG3260000@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "LENNOXVILLE" 22-FEB-1995 15:14:45.59 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Environmental enrichment for dairy cattle Dear Professor Duncan, Dr. Jeff Rushen has just passed onto us your slanderous message about dairy cows and has allowed me to respond using his computer. As representative of the Lennoxville Dairy herd, I must protest about your recent speciesist view that we dairy cows do not need environmental enrichment. Just because we are laid-back, take life easy and enjoy chewing our cud, does not mean that we are not sensitive to what happens around us. When things get bad, we keep our cool. What do you want us to do?- yell and scream like those stinking pigs that everyone is so worried about, or run around as if our heads were cut off, like those dumb chickens you watch all day? Now *there's* a waste of environmental enrichment! If you kick us, do we not moo? If you poke us, do we not kick? People think we are dumb because we like our routine, the same thing every day. But if it works, why change it? Consider: 1- letting a calf suck on a rubber teat a few minutes after a meal will increase secretion of several digestive hormones such as insulin (de Passille et al. Physiology and Behavior 1993 vol 54:1069-1073), and can almost eliminate cross-sucking (my poor babies) 2- if you stroke me and stay within 5 m of me for the hour after I have given birth to my first calf, I will be much less likely to kick you in the head, when you next try to grab my udder, and there will be less cortisol in my milk (Hemsworth et al. AABS 1989 22:313-326) (Environmental enrichment doesn't have to be just physical!) 3- just changing the milker and aversive handling can change our milk yield by up to 25%!! (Seabrook Vet Record 1984 115:84). According to Seabrook some of my sisters even give less milk when their owner becomes psychologically upset because of mining operations near his farm! Now there's sensitive! Stupid pigs can't even tell people apart! (Hemsworth et al. AABS 1994) 4- just putting me in unfamiliar surroundings can substantially reduce my milk yield and oxytocin secretion and increase milk cortisol (Bruckmaier et al,. 1993). Does environmental enrichment have to involve change? Finally, if you want to talk to us, make sure that you talk "with" and not "to" us, and in a confident but NOT aggressive tone of voice! (Seabrook 1984) Be warned: stay away from Lennoxville, or I will tread on your toes! May your milk curdle in your porridge! Daisy LaVache, Lennoxville. ============================================================================= From: IN%"mrenner@wcupa.edu" "Renner, Michael" 22-FEB-1995 15:17:03.60 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology List'" CC: Subj: FW: Environmental enrichment for cattle Hello All. As somebody who has worked extensively in both the areas of environmental enrichment and exploratory behavior, I feel compelled to emerge from my usual status as a "lurker" on the list to shoot off my mouth. I'm generally sympathetic with Ian Duncan's remarks (below), or at least my interpretation of what they mean. That's the problem. I'm afraid that we are only substituting one ill-defined term (exploration) as a diagnostic criterion for when it's appropriate to use a procedure labelled by another ill-defined term (enrichment). I hate to say this for two reasons. First, because I think that both ill-defined terms identify valuable concepts that deserve a lot more empirical attention (i.e., research) than they get. Second, because the distinction Ian's drawing -- as to the types of species for which enrichment will and won't be useful -- is (in my opinion) probably a valid one. So why am I complaining? It's because both terms are used in so many different and often contradictory ways that everybody's going to THINK they have understood it, without much chance that we all agree on what it meant. Until we have some usable taxonomy of exploratory behavior (e.g., tendency towards, forms taken, permissive/prohibited contexts, etc.), I'm not sure that such statements are really getting us anywhere. Also, such a taxonomy would (he said, going a wee bit out on a limb) help in the proper design of enrichment procedures. Fell free to berate me, either on the list or privately, via MRenner@Wcupa.Edu. Cheers, Michael Renner ---------- From: applied-ethology-error To: applied-ethology Subject: Environmental enrichment for cattle Date: Wednesday, February 22, 1995 2:04PM Dear All, I would like to add to Julie Morrow-Tesch's question about environmental enrichment for cattle and ask "Is it appropriate even to consider environmental enrichment for cattle?" I worry that sometimes concepts get introduced to our field of interest and then get used indiscriminately either as an explanation for previously unexplained phenomena ("learned helplessness" would be a good recent example) or as a universal solution to many problems (I'm afraid that "environmental enrichment" might be falling into this category). "Environmental enrichment" does seem to have something to offer for some species. My impression is that these are species that naturally show a lot of exploratory behaviour (mice, rats, pigs). My impression also is that cattle (at least cattle that have reached the ruminating stage) do not spend a lot of time in exploration. As hinted at by Julie, perhaps environmental enrichment does have something to offer for calves. I'd like to hear comments. Yours, Ian Duncan ============================================================================ From: IN%"CHRISTISON@admin.usask.ca" 22-FEB-1995 17:54:16.85 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Environmental enrichment At the risk of leaving the air even less clear, I have another question about environmental enrichment. We strive to hold environmental temperatures constant in institutional dog and pig houses. Is this unchanging thermal environment detrimental? Could it be as important to provide a fluctuating temperature to stimulate animals physiologically as it is to provide "toys" to stimulate them behaviorally? Iain Christison, Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan. Email: Christison@admin.usask.ca. ============================================================================== From: IN%"pdkaio@PObox.ruu.nl" "heleen van de weerd" 23-FEB-1995 03:22:46.87 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Hello, I would like to add something to the environmental-enrichment-for-cattle- discussion. I have experience in the field of laboratory animal science and enrichment, but I think the concept is the same. What I learned is that many people think that enrichment is giving animals 'toys' to play with. But I think enrichment reaches further. You can enrich several aspects of the environment of an animal e.g. the social environment or the physical environment. Social enrichment can consist of housing animals together (in pairs or groups) or housing them together with other animal species. Even contact with humans can sometimes be considered as social enrichment. The 'nutritional' environment can be enriched. The form and type of food, the way the animals get there food and what they have to do to get their food are ways of keeping the animals busy. Sensory environment: all kinds of stimuli can be used as enrichment (auditory, visual, olfactory, tactile stimuli). E.g. in laboratories, often a radio plays softly in animal rooms to mask sudden noises which could scare animals. Providing pigs with mud can perhaps be cnsidered as tactile enrichment. And the last example: physical enrichment, the well known form of providing animals with toys, shelters, more space, etc. In this way the living space of animals is structured and therefore they have control of their environment. Cows in the field probably have a lot of stimuli and need not be enriched. But when kept in stables their environment is so much poorer compared to outside that enrichment could make their life more 'exciting', and also enable them to perform more of their natural behavioural repertoire. Heleen van de Weerd ~ Department of Laboratory Animal Science ~ ~ Utrecht University () () ~ ~ P.O.Box 80.166, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands 0 0 ~ ~ Phone: ++31 30 532033, Telefax: ++31 30 537997 =o= ~ ~ Replacement, Reduction & Refinement of Animal Experiments ~ ============================================================================== From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 23-FEB-1995 07:15:19.16 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: rock/ chain chewing pigs (1) Dear All, John McGlone and I have been having a debate about rock chewing and stereotypic behaviour in pigs on another channel, PIGFARM. Since it has become behavioural, we agreed to move it over here in case some of you would like to join in. Jeff Rushen forwarded message********************************************** From: OTTGW::IN%"ANJJM@ttacs1.ttu.edu" 21-FEB-1995 10:03:08.70 To: IN%"PIGFARM@IST01.FERRIS.EDU" "Pig Farming discussion group" CC: Subj: RE: rock carriers I have been telling people about rock chewing among outdoor sows for years. But only recently have we documented this and related behaviors. We will have an abstract at the summer 1995 ASAS meetings in Orlando, Florida on this subject. Outdoor sows spend as much time chewing rocks and sham chewing (chewing in the air or chomping -- almost cud chewing) as indoor crated sows spend biting bars. As a result, we conclude that both behaviors are "normal". Also, sows on pasture spend as much time grazing as crated sows spend bar biting and dirt-kept sows spend rock chewing. JP Signoret has some field data in France that reaches the same conclusion. When the field data and controlled studies agree, we have some strenght in our conclusions. Best of luck. John McGlone Texas Tech University ANJJM@TTACS.TTU.EDU On Tue, 21 Feb 1995, Regina Fogarty wrote: > > I have only recently become aware that sows in outdoor production units > develop the habit of carrying rocks around in their mouths. > Is this really common? > Why do they do it? > > Thanks > > R Fogarty > NSW Agriculture > Australia > > ============================================================================== From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 23-FEB-1995 07:23:11.78 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: rock/chain chewing pigs (2) From: OTTA::RUSHENJ "JEFF RUSHEN" 21-FEB-1995 10:33:08.64 To: OTTGW::IN%"PIGFARM@IST01.FERRIS.EDU" CC: RUSHENJ Subj: RE: rock carriers John McGlone Texas Tech University ANJJM@TTACS.TTU.EDU writes: >Outdoor sows spend as much time chewing rocks and sham chewing >(chewing in the air or chomping -- almost cud chewing) as indoor >crated sows spend biting bars. As a result, we conclude that >both behaviors are "normal". Also, sows on pasture spend as much >time grazing as crated sows spend bar biting and dirt-kept sows >spend rock chewing. That outdoor sows spend as much time chewing rocks as indoor sows spend chewing bars etc. is not enough evidence that the behaviors are equivalent. Chain and bar chewing by crated sows 1). occurs mainly after feeding 2). is reduced by increasing the feed level 3). is reduced by use of high-fiber diets 4). is reduced by allowing the pigs to root around on straw. If stone chewing is the same behavior it would need to show the same effects. I would be interested to know if stone chewing does occur mainly after feeding and if the sows are on a low feed level. I am not sure what John means by `normal'. However, there is now a lot of evidence that chain and bar chewing by crated sows is a sign of hunger. I can supply references if anyone is interested. Jeff Rushen Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA ============================================================================ From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 23-FEB-1995 07:23:48.04 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: rock/chain chewing pigs (3) From: OTTGW::IN%"ANJJM@ttacs.ttu.edu" 22-FEB-1995 08:18:38.09 To: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" CC: IN%"PIGFARM@IST01.FERRIS.EDU" "Pig Farming discussion group" Subj: RE: rock carriers Jeff Rushen has fallen into the same old trap that has been set for "observers of oral/nasal activities" for years. He gives evidence that straw chewing is not the same as bar biting by saying (correctly) that if you give crated sows high fiber diets or straw then they bite the bars less. Still, biting bars without straw = biting bars + chewing straw with straw provided. That crated sows chew fiber in the diet or straw or bars makes no difference. Jeff also presents the well-published view that hunger "causes" stereotyped behaviors, but he failed to mention that even less feed intake (ie., more hunger) actually reduces stereotyped behaviors. In science and in the OJ trial, chewing is chewing unless you (Jeff or others) show otherwise. It matters not what they chew -- to the pig. To answer his other question, yes rock chewing is found after feeding, just when stereotyped behavior is observed. John McGlone On Tue, 21 Feb 1995, JEFF RUSHEN wrote: > John McGlone > Texas Tech University > ANJJM@TTACS.TTU.EDU > writes: > > >Outdoor sows spend as much time chewing rocks and sham chewing > >(chewing in the air or chomping -- almost cud chewing) as indoor > >crated sows spend biting bars. As a result, we conclude that > >both behaviors are "normal". Also, sows on pasture spend as much > >time grazing as crated sows spend bar biting and dirt-kept sows > >spend rock chewing. > > That outdoor sows spend as much time chewing rocks as indoor sows > spend chewing bars etc. is not enough evidence that the behaviors > are equivalent. Chain and bar chewing by crated sows 1). occurs > mainly after feeding 2). is reduced by increasing the feed level > 3). is reduced by use of high-fiber diets 4). is reduced by > allowing the pigs to root around on straw. If stone chewing is the > same behavior it would need to show the same effects. I would be > interested to know if stone chewing does occur mainly after feeding > and if the sows are on a low feed level. > > I am not sure what John means by `normal'. However, there is now a > lot of evidence that chain and bar chewing by crated sows is a sign > of hunger. I can supply references if anyone is interested. > > Jeff Rushen > Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, > Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada > RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA ============================================================================= From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 23-FEB-1995 07:24:33.95 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: rock/chain chewing pigs (4) From: OTTA::RUSHENJ "JEFF RUSHEN" 22-FEB-1995 09:36:58.73 To: OTTGW::IN%"ANJJM@TTACS.TTU.EDU" CC: OTTGW::IN%"PIGFARM@IST01.FERRIS.EDU",RUSHENJ Subj: RE: rock carriers John McGlone writes: >Jeff Rushen has fallen into the same old trap that has been set >for "observers of oral/nasal activities" for years. He gives >evidence that straw chewing is not the same as bar biting by >saying (correctly) that if you give crated sows high fiber diets >or straw then they bite the bars less. Still, biting bars >without straw = biting bars + chewing straw with straw provided. I partly agree with John. This may explain why straw bedding or handfuls of straw after a meal reduce bar-biting. The sows don't chew the bars or chain because they are chewing the straw. David Fraser (Animal Prod. 1975 21:59) found that when sows were given straw bedding, the extra time they spent chewing the straw was similar (or even greater) than the time they used to spend bar- biting. Are sows better off chewing straw or chewing an iron bar? I would think they would be better off chewing straw, although I agree that there is not much evidence one way or the other. Certainly, if given a choice, they prefer to chew the straw (Fraser 1975 above). However, this does not explain the effect of high-fiber diets. First, the extra time spent eating a high-fiber diet is often less than the reduction in time spent chewing a bar or chain. Robert et al (Applied Animal Behaviour Science,1993, vol 37:297-309) found that a high-fiber wheat bran and corn cob diet increased eating time from 2.5% to 5.2% of the day. However, the time spent chain- chewing decreased from 24.9% to 9.6% (Table 1 in paper), which is a much larger difference. High-fiber diets also substantially reduce the amount of time spent drinking and the amount of water drunk (Robert above). The high-fiber diets can also improve some measures of piglet performance (Matte et al. J. Animal Science 1994 72:1754). I think one effect of the high-fiber diets is to increase stomach bulk, which may reduce feelings of hunger. Note that simply adding chopped straw to the diet does not reduce chain chewing (Fraser 1975 above), again suggesting that the effects of other high-fiber diets is not just because they increase chewing time during feeding. >Jeff also presents the well-published view that hunger "causes" >stereotyped behaviors, but he failed to mention that even less >feed intake (ie., more hunger) actually reduces stereotyped >behaviors. That an decreased feed level increases chain chewing by gestating sows has been reported several times (eg. Appleby and Lawrence Animal Production 1987 45:103; Appleby et al. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1989, 24:137; Terlouw et al Animal Behaviour 1991 42:981). I am not aware of the study John mentions (could I have the citation?), but it does not alter the fact that increasing hunger up to some point increases chain chewing. That even stronger levels of hunger could have the opposite effect is not surprising. >In science and in the OJ trial, chewing is chewing unless you >(Jeff or others) show otherwise. It matters not what they chew -- >to the pig. As I said above it is largely a matter of guesswork whether a hungry sow chewing straw is better off than a hungry sow chewing an iron bar. From the sow's point of view, she would probably prefer not to be hungry. (For those who asked me, references on stereotypic behaviour can be found in A. Lawrence and J. Rushen eds Stereotypic Animal Behaviour CAB International Wallingford UK 1993 and A. Lawrence and C. Terlouw Journal of Animal Science 1993 vol 71 page 2815) Jeff Rushen rushenj@ncccot.agr.ca ============================================================================= From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 23-FEB-1995 07:54:10.51 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: rock/chain chewing forwarded From: OTTGW::IN%"signoret@tours.inra.fr" 23-FEB-1995 08:48:41.41 To: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" CC: Subj: RE: rock/chain chewing pigs (4) Dear all, to participate to the debate transmitted, I can add that pregnant sows in pasture, with a good grass coverage, display oral activity at the same rhythm as in crates. They sometimes chew grass as they would do in a pen provided with straw, but they mostly lick the soil near the place where food has been distributed, they actually chew clay and often pebbles. They keep chewing the same pebble even for more than half an hour. In fact such sows -348 sows observed in 15 different farms - were fed with a similar diet (total amount, energy and protein) as a comparable group of sows housed either in crates or indoors in groups. Yours J.P. Signoret >From: OTTA::RUSHENJ "JEFF RUSHEN" 22-FEB-1995 09:36:58.73 >To: OTTGW::IN%"ANJJM@TTACS.TTU.EDU" >CC: OTTGW::IN%"PIGFARM@IST01.FERRIS.EDU",RUSHENJ >Subj: RE: rock carriers > >John McGlone writes: > >>Jeff Rushen has fallen into the same old trap that has been set >>for "observers of oral/nasal activities" for years. He gives >>evidence that straw chewing is not the same as bar biting by >>saying (correctly) that if you give crated sows high fiber diets >>or straw then they bite the bars less. Still, biting bars >>without straw =3D biting bars + chewing straw with straw provided.=20 > >I partly agree with John. This may explain why straw bedding or >handfuls of straw after a meal reduce bar-biting. The sows don't >chew the bars or chain because they are chewing the straw. David >Fraser (Animal Prod. 1975 21:59) found that when sows were given >straw bedding, the extra time they spent chewing the straw was >similar (or even greater) than the time they used to spend bar- >biting. Are sows better off chewing straw or chewing an iron bar? >I would think they would be better off chewing straw, although I >agree that there is not much evidence one way or the other. >Certainly, if given a choice, they prefer to chew the straw (Fraser >1975 above). > > However, this does not explain the effect of high-fiber diets. >First, the extra time spent eating a high-fiber diet is often less >than the reduction in time spent chewing a bar or chain. Robert et >al (Applied Animal Behaviour Science,1993, vol 37:297-309) found >that a high-fiber wheat bran and corn cob diet increased eating >time from 2.5% to 5.2% of the day. However, the time spent chain- >chewing decreased from 24.9% to 9.6% (Table 1 in paper), which is >a much larger difference. High-fiber diets also substantially >reduce the amount of time spent drinking and the amount of water >drunk (Robert above). The high-fiber diets can also improve some >measures of piglet performance (Matte et al. J. Animal Science 1994 >72:1754). I think one effect of the high-fiber diets is to increase >stomach bulk, which may reduce feelings of hunger. Note that simply >adding chopped straw to the diet does not reduce chain chewing >(Fraser 1975 above), again suggesting that the effects of other >high-fiber diets is not just because they increase chewing time >during feeding. > > > >>Jeff also presents the well-published view that hunger "causes" >>stereotyped behaviors, but he failed to mention that even less >>feed intake (ie., more hunger) actually reduces stereotyped=20 >>behaviors. =20 > >That an decreased feed level increases chain chewing by gestating >sows has been reported several times (eg. Appleby and Lawrence >Animal Production 1987 45:103; Appleby et al. Applied Animal >Behaviour Science 1989, 24:137; Terlouw et al Animal Behaviour 1991 >42:981). I am not aware of the study John mentions (could I have >the citation?), but it does not alter the fact that increasing >hunger up to some point increases chain chewing. That even stronger >levels of hunger could have the opposite effect is not surprising. > > > >>In science and in the OJ trial, chewing is chewing unless you >>(Jeff or others) show otherwise. It matters not what they chew -- >>to the pig. > >As I said above it is largely a matter of guesswork whether a >hungry sow chewing straw is better off than a hungry sow chewing an >iron bar. From the sow's point of view, she would probably prefer >not to be hungry. > >(For those who asked me, references on stereotypic behaviour can be >found in A. Lawrence and J. Rushen eds Stereotypic Animal Behaviour >CAB International Wallingford UK 1993 and A. Lawrence and C. >Terlouw Journal of Animal Science 1993 vol 71 page 2815) > > >Jeff Rushen >rushenj@ncccot.agr.ca > >=95 > > J.P. Signoret ============================================================================ From: IN%"kmorgan@wheatonma.edu" 23-FEB-1995 09:22:23.45 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: rock/chain chewing pigs Hi there, I know I am coming into this discussion a bit late, but I was wondering if someone would restate the question for me. I have observed wild boar in California doing rock and other solid object-chewing, and wondered how that observation might fit in here..... --Kathy Morgan ============================================================================== From: IN%"IDUNCAN@APS.UoGuelph.CA" 23-FEB-1995 11:57:52.35 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Environmental enrichment Dear All, Suggesting that "environmental enrichment" may not be an appropriate concept for cattle, seems to have stirred up a hornet's nest. A couple of lines form Robert Burns seem particularly apposite since they involved cattle as well (Burns was describing how angry some witches were when they were disturbed by Tam O'Shanter and how they flew after him to wreak their revenge. But please do not infer that I am calling network subscribers witches!) "... as bees bizz out with angry fyke, when plundering herds assail their byke" (a "byke" is a bees' nest) Anyway, I had better explain what I mean by "exploration" and by "enrichment" (these are rough and ready descriptions, not definitions). Exploration - an activity shown by an animal which has no immediate pay-back but which may have some future pay-back. The animal may be assimilating knowledge that has some future use. (You see, I AM a functionalist!). Environmental enrichment - the addition of something to an artificial environment, OVER AND ABOVE all the environmental factors that are required to satisfy an animal's specific needs, that seems to have some beneficial effect. So in reply to some of the comments that were made: I would not call the locomotion described by Sharon Crowell-Davis "exploration". I would call it grass seeking (as she did) and would classify it as an appetitive component of grazing behaviour. I am not sure to what extent locomotion is an essential component of feeding - but if it was shown to be very important (feeding could not be shown without the cow attempting to walk and a negative emotional response resulted in prevention of walking) then I would conclude that the artificial environment should be designed to allow this behaviour. But I don't think that design feature should be termed "enrichment". In reply to Daisy from Lennoxville (and obviously I am going to have to get used to soya substitute on my porridge!) I would say, (1) letting a calf suck on a rubber teat is not "enrichment" - it is essential! That woman with the nice accent who works at your place has clearly shown that calves have a specific need to suck on teats - they will try very hard to do it and doing it has profound beneficial physiological consequences; (2) habituating cows to human beings undoubtedly has beneficial effects - but why call it "enrichment" why not just "habituation"?; (3 & 4) undoubtedly aversive treatments have detrimental effects - but calling a lack of aversive stimulation "enrichment" is REALLY stretching things! In reply to Vera Baumans and to Heleen van de Weerd (who make very similar comments) I would agree that artificial environments should allow strongly motivated species-specific behaviour to occur - but I wouldn't call that "enrichment", I would call it an essential design feature. The comment I find most interesting is that of Alan Beck. Indeed it MIGHT be possible to enrich a cows environment even when all its specific needs are met. But there isn't much evidence available at the moment. Perhaps as Julie progresses with her survey, some evidence might appear. So what DO I mean by "environmental enrichment"? The problem is that I can't think of many good examples. The experiment by David Wood- Gush and Klaus Vestergaard (reference escapes me at the moment) perhaps gets closest to the idea. They showed that pigs would work quite hard to enter pens in which they might find a strange object. They could manipulate the object and smell it, but objects were chosen that had no specific "value" to the pigs. The primate literature has more examples of a variety of objects and facilities that can be manipulated and "used" in many different of ways. (But I wouldn't call devices that allow marmosets to show gum-feeding behaviour "enrichment" - I would call them essential.) Yours, Ian Duncan ============================================================================== From: IN%"agt@aber.ac.uk" 23-FEB-1995 14:13:19.94 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Pigschewrocks Some fuel for Jeff's fire. There's a little known abstract fromm the ISAE meeting in Berlin which mentions stone chewing by outdoor sows. By all means check this up for yourselves, but I think it said that food restricted outdoor sows stone chew. Improve their diet (this could have been more food, more fibre or more energy) and you reduce the incidence of stone chewing. Sounds to me like a similar story to bar-biting etc in stalled sows. This is the reference. Edwards, S.A., Atkinson, K.A. & Lawrence A.B. 1993 The effect of food level and type on behaviour of outdoor sows. In proc of international congress on applied ethology, Berlin 1993, pp. 501-503. ed by M. Nichelmann, H.K. Wierenga, S. Braun. Jonathan (voless) Cooper ============================================================================ From: IN%"Joy_A_MENCH@umail.umd.edu" 23-FEB-1995 14:14:40.80 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Envrionmental enrichment At the risk of being flamed (or is is mooed?) by Daisy, I would like to support the points that Ian Duncan and Mike Renner made about enrichment. If we are to call anything that we add to the environment "enrichment" if it stimulates the expression of the consumatory or appetitive components of behaviors, then providing an artificial teat for a calf or a foraging board for a primate are indeed enrichments, and it seems likely that any species of animal would benefit from this type of enrichment. However, some animals also engage in behaviors that appear to function primarily to gain information about the environment for future use in accessing resources (so-called intrinsic exploratory behaviors). By definition, enrichment strategies to satisy exploratory needs must employ continuing novelty and variation (within limits appropriate for the species, of course). In a paper I gave at a zoo enrichment meeting several years ago, I suggested that enrichment of this type was most critical for animals from species that: 1) evolved in habitats in which resources are patchy or seasonally variable, 2) show complex anti-predator strategies that require knowledge of escape routes or hide areas; 3) have a complex social organization. Of course, I only work with those nasty chickens (who, entirely coincidentally, meet all three of the criteria outlined above). Since Daisy seems to be a particularly smart cow, I'll let her decide where she fits into this scenario! Joy Mench ============================================================================== From: IN%"William_R_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu" 23-FEB-1995 15:41:42.98 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Richer Environments Daisy knows well that environmental enrichment is not a matter of aesthetics. It is Daisy's "internal environment" that may be in need of enrichment, and if such a concept as environmental enrichment has meaning in the real world, then her internal environment is just as worthy of consideration as that of lesser species. Ferdinand The Bull aka Ray Stricklin =============================================================================== From: IN%"Emily.Patterson-Kane@vuw.ac.nz" 23-FEB-1995 19:52:22.13 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: enrichment hi I am about to start a PhD on environmental enrichment options for laboratory rats. Investigating measurement of enrichment on the basis of fear and cognition, and later the contribution of space, comple space, nesting materials, wheel and social contact on the overall effect (given that I find one). I am not using 'toys' as the habituation rate would seem to make them an impractical solution in an appied setting. I am including a standard nz lab rat group to see how it compared with traditional enriched and impoverished groups. I am currently looking for references (current & preferable obtainable in new zealand) and an comment at all from people with experience in, opinions on, the area. please send any comments or suggestions to me at Emily.Patterson-Kane@vuw.ac.nz thanks ============================================================================= From: IN%"APN6RGR@SOUTH-01.NOVELL.LEEDS.ac.uk" "RODWAY R.G." 24-FEB-1995 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Dairy cow behaviourist We are looking for someone with experience of cattle behaviour to join an EU application on dairy cow metabolism. If anyone from mainland Europe is interested in joining the group please contact me. Time is short. Richard Rodway University of Leeds,UK ============================================================================== From: IN%"AG3260000@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "LENNOXVILLE" 24-FEB-1995 08:41:55.27 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: daisy wars > "... as bees bizz out with angry fyke, > when plundering herds assail their byke" ainsi Daisy s'envole avec un grand MOOOOOO et Duncan s'enfuit! Bien entendu! ('scuse, parles pas anglais) Buttercup (Daisy's free-stall competitor) (Editors translation: "thus Daisy takes wing with significant vocalization, and Duncan, of course, retires") ============================================================================== From: IN%"depassilleam@EM.AGR.CA" "Anne Marie De Passille" 24-FEB-1995 To: IN%"IDUNCAN@APS.UoGuelph.CA", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: My ears are burning I must say a few words. My ears are burning I must say a few words. First I would like to look at our use of the term "environmental enrichement = EE". I beleive that we in agriculture, lab animals and zoo animal "environments " usually use this term as a sales pitch ... Whether we talk of satisfying a strong motivation (behavioural NEED!), or making things more interesting for the animal, we talk of an EE. Most of the animals we study survive in the barren environments we provide, it is very tempting to qualify any improvement to these environments as an EE! And it is probably a fine way of selling these changes to the people that provide for these animals. When we are dealing with technology transfer we must sell our product if we want people to use it and things to "improve" for the animals. I can't help agree with Ian that for calves the artificial teat is essential and that brings us to a scientific definition of EE. Presently, in my scientific environment, with physiologists, nutritionists and others, it is much easier to sell a project about motivation when the end product is EE. But from our point of view, it is questionable that providing the opportunity to do something important to the animal (see Joy Mench comments) is simply enrichement, however we could agree to call it just that :EE. (Then we return to the discussion of behavioural needs.) Or we could accept Ian Duncan's definition (perhaps we shoud be numbering our messages to identify them...) as in his 8:59 message on the 24/02/95. We seem to be laden with difficult english imprecise words in our science: STRESS, EE, NEEDS, exploration, fear,etc....We need to clarify these and set up conceps that help us develop research hypothesis and tests (see M.Renner, #x..).. But we also need to do tech transfer, and here again the words are confusing. But I will leave language to those that understand English better than I. Second, I think "Daisy" makes a good claim for the fact that we know very little about cattle and that we are quite presumptuous to imply all kinds of things about their needs and desires. No one wanted to beleive me that milk stimulates sucking in calves, now we know it is true . We have also demonstrated that providing an artificial non-nutritive teat to calves raised in groups will reduce dramatically cross-sucking. A teat was available for each calf after each milk meal, calves clearly prefered to suck the teat than each other. In the control groups where no teat was available X-sucking was rampant right after the meal. When the calves where weaned off milk, that is receiving grain and hay only, we no longer observed X-sucking in either type of group. Calves are so motivated to suck after milk, it is mean not to let them do it. We have also found that this sucking after a meal modulates the secretion of digestive hormones. However we have not yet looked at how satisfying this motivation could effect growth, a study is now on going. So, how will we call this teat, an EE or a tool to satisfy a need? Personnaly I tell producers that it is a tool to enrich the environment of the calf. They like the idea. But from a scientific point of view, we are talking about motivation and the effects of frustrating or satisfying this motivation. Salut, Anne Marie de Passille ============================================================================ From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 24-FEB-1995 15:01:14.54 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: environmental improvement I really must apologize to Ian Duncan and the rest of you for the unwarranted outburst by our cows Daisy and Buttercup. They burst into my office, mooing wildly and began stomping on my keyboard: I had no idea that they were sending messages. (That`s the trouble with growth hormone). I can see that the discussion on environmental enrichment is beginning to circle the swamp of definition. It usually doesn't take us long to get to this point (see `What is welfare', `What is fear' etc. on Joe Stookey's soon-to-be-set-up archive `Historical Moments in the Life of Applied-ethology'). "Stress", "welfare", "environmental enrichment" etc. are book chapter headings: they give the reader a rough idea of the subject, but different authors will include different things and take different approaches. Use of these terms doesn`t cause problems if we accept they are vague and undefined. The problems arise when we try to give a more specific and restrictive definition. I think the discussion itself gives an indication of the confusion that results if we try to define environmental enrichment as `an unessential addition to an environment done to promote exploratory behaviour'. Daisy herself uses the term to mean `an environmental change done to improve welfare', so you can see her reaction was understandable. I think in defining such terms, it is best to use the `dictionary definition' approach i.e. describe the full range of ways in which the word tends to be used. Maybe the problem is the implication in the word `rich'. Couldn`t we just say environmental improvement? Putting aside the uninteresting question of where and whether we use the word `enrichment', the substantive thrust of Ian`s comment is that we can classify an animal's environmental requirements into those that are essential (for what?- life? welfare?) and those that are beneficial but not essential. Is this a true dichotomy or an artificial splitting of a continuum? What criteria could we use to classify requirements in this way? Jeff Rushen rushenj@ncccot.agr.ca ============================================================================ From: IN%"William_R_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu" 24-FEB-1995 16:28:38.27 To: IN%"William_R_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu" CC: Subj: RE: Richer Environments ----------- Begin Forwarded Message ------------ Ray Stricklin said: >It is Daisy's "internal environment" that may be in need of > enrichment, and ... . Daisy's internal environment is controlled by what she eats and drinks and how she behaves (e.g. seeks shelter). Does she require a stable internal environment (that's what Physiology is about to a large extent) or is it good to have a changing environment? Clearly internal conditions have to change (e.g. blood glucose to fall) in order to trigger interactions with the environment (eating, sheltering) but is it good in a welfare sense for the internal environment to be variable? ------------------------------------------------ Professor Mike Forbes, Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds LS2 9JT Email: j.m.forbes@leeds.ac.uk Phone: (0113) 2333053 Fax: (0113) 2333072 ------------ End Forwarded Message ------------- Mike, I am answering via the network with a short answer now and maybe more later. By internal environment, I was referring to the subjective sensory (I will even say mental!) state within which Daisy resides - what von Uexkull called the "umvelt" way back sometime around 1920. By internal environment, I meant that from Daisy's viewpoint what looks good to humans (either her behavior or features in her surrounding) does not benefit her welfare unless it positively affects her "internal environment." Enrichment of the internal environment should be the ultimate goal, and I would suggest, the only thing that is of interest to Daisy. Ray Stricklin ============================================================================= From: IN%"Joy_A_MENCH@umail.umd.edu" 25-FEB-1995 11:52:11.05 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Enriching Miss Daisy Of COURSE we are embroiled in a discussion about terminology--as far as I can tell, that seems to be our primary job as applied ethologists! Like enrichment, exploration is certainly not without definitional difficulties, and I would not want to pretend otherwise. However, I do think it can provide a useful construct for us when we think about what type of environmental improvement (I like Jeff's term) might be most appropriate for a particular species. Jeff framed the enrichment/exploration difference as a matter of whether a behavior is essential or non-essential. But if the consequence of exploring your environment daily is that one day, when a hawk looms overhead, you are able to immediately run to a hide area that you are familiar with--I would call that pretty essential! I would frame the difference in the following way instead. Our first goal should be to provide animals with the ability to carry out the appetitive and consumatory phases of the criticial behaviors in their repertoire. Some animals, however, have an additional, and perhaps just as essential need, and that is to monitor environmental change because the performance of FUTURE behaviors depends critically on knowing how the characteristics of the environment (physical or social) vary temporally and/or spatially. Menzel's recent article in Animal Behaviour on cognitive foraging strategies in monkeys provides a very nice example of this type of exploration. For such animals, an improved environment will require not just the stimuli that allow the components of particular behaviors to be performed, but continuing novelty to facilitate information-gathering. It seems to me that these "exploratory needs" will be greatest in species from habitats in which there is a lot of variation, rather than in relatively stable habitats in which resources are evenly distributed. In addition, social animals have to be continuously aware of changing social dynamics and how that affects their future access to resources (time to disperse, guys!). Not to open a can of worms, however (OK, OK, I actually do hope to open up a can of worms)--I wonder how much the expectation of variation is affected by rearing. Does an adult animal from a species from a variable habitat that is reared (and/or selected, in the case of some farm animals) in an invariant one "lose" its need for this kind of variation? If so, we may be doing a disservice to that animal by introducing novelty if the result is just fear or overstimulation. Some enrichment studies with farm animals have produced apparently paradoxical results (that is, the effect of the enrichment is negative rather then positive), and I wonder if this might be the reason. (I think Mike Renner has done some work on enrichment at different ages using rats--any comments, Mike or others?) Joy Mench ============================================================================== From: IN%"aa266@cleveland.Freenet.Edu" 25-FEB-1995 14:32:43.40 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cat Declaw > >There seems to be some interest in cat declawing. Studies here show that >declawing has significant value in reducing the risk of Cat Scratch Disease >to humans. What is the epidemiologic, behavioral, and ethical literature >on declawing. Declawed cats appear to be able to chase, fight and climb >trees. Bite incidence appears to be the same in all cats. >Is there any real data to the contrary? >We neuter and dock--is the line drawn on declaw real or imagined? > > PURDUE School of Veterinary Medicine phone 317/494-0854 >UNIVERSITY West Lafayette, IN 47907-1243 fax 317/494-9830 > > A recent study by Gary Landsburg in Toronto of the owners of 276 declawed cats and a control group of owners of 120 non-declawed cats showed: The reason for the declaw was: - To prevent damage to home 86% - To prevent damage to humans 29% Owner thoughts about the surgery: - Satisfied about declawing before surgery 84% - Satisfied about declawing after surgery 96% - Human-animal bond increased by surgery 70% 41% of owners allowed the cat to go outdoors after the surgery with no reported problems. Most owners simply stated that their cats hunted, climbed, and defended themselves as efficiently as before the surgery. The only long-term problems reported in this group were: - poor weight bearing 1 case - house soiling 1 case (It was not reported how this was associated) - reluctance to have the paws handled 1 case (This is exceedingly common in all cats; declawed or not.) My own experience with over 30 years of declawing cats is that complications are rare, it seems to matter little to the cat once the paws are healed, and since many of these patients were candidates for euthanasia because of their house damaging scratching, declawing is certainly much more humane than "the big, blue needle". (For the uninitiated, many euthanasia solutions are dyed blue.) -- DBC (aka D.B. Cameron, DVM) ============================================================================ From: IN%"aa266@cleveland.Freenet.Edu" 25-FEB-1995 15:07:00.36 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cat Declaw > >declawing in cats is regarded as an unecessary mutilation, and is >prohibited in the UK, as is tail docking and ear cropping in dogs. For >behavioural data, see Morgan M. and Houpt K.A. (1990) feline behaviour >Problems: the influence of de-clawing. Anthrozoos 3: 50-53. >Irene Rochlitz Dept of Clin Vet Med,Univ of Cambridge.( Could one justify >de-teething cats, as they can manage quite well without teeth, and this >would stop them biting people?) In the real world, where all pet owners are not committed to their pets no matter what they do, removing the teeth to prevent bite damage beats the heck out of killing the cat (aka euthanasia). Having done this a few times for dogs as well as cats, I can testify that removing incisors and canines does no apparent psychological injury to the patient, and, best of all, they get to live. And as you say, "they can manage quite well without teeth." > >On Tue, 21 Feb 1995, ALAN M. BECK wrote: > >> There seems to be some interest in cat declawing. Studies here show that >> declawing has significant value in reducing the risk of Cat Scratch Disease >> to humans. What is the epidemiologic, behavioral, and ethical literature >> on declawing. Declawed cats appear to be able to chase, fight and climb >> trees. Bite incidence appears to be the same in all cats. >> Is there any real data to the contrary? >> We neuter and dock--is the line drawn on declaw real or imagined? >> >> PURDUE School of Veterinary Medicine phone 317/494-0854 >> UNIVERSITY West Lafayette, IN 47907-1243 fax 317/494-9830 >> > > -- DBC (aka D.B. Cameron, DVM) ============================================================================= From: IN%"alp18@cus.cam.ac.uk" "Anthony Podberscek" 26-FEB-1995 08:40:48.51 To: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" CC: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: environmental improvement Why not just call it ' environmental modification' - makes no assumption as to the way in which the environment changes (improves, worsens) and........**thank heavens above** is probably Politically Correct as well. Anthony Podberscek..................I'm alive. ============================================================================== From: IN%"alp18@cus.cam.ac.uk" "Anthony Podberscek" 26-FEB-1995 10:02:50.38 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: I, Declawdius While I understand that many pet owners do not afhere to behavioural modification programmes (as advised by vets or behaviour consultants), the trend towards offering surgical solutions to behaviour problems is disturbing. I acknowledge that D.B. Cameron was probably talking about de-teething in only desperate cases?? Pet owners do, in general, like to get quick results and hence a desire to be prescribed a pill or surgical technique for their pet, to achieve such results. Achieving positive results from behaviour modification can take a relatively large amount of time (this of course is dependent on the problems etc.) and involves much more work on the owner's part. Pet owners have a responsibility to look after their animals and have to make many choices on their behalf. Surgical techniques should, I feel, only be recommended when all else fails and where it is deemed better than euthanasia* However, it seems that techniques such as de-clawing are becoming more popular in the United States - are vets going straight for the surgical *answer* and bypassing behaviour modification?? I Hope not. Ultimately, the decision lies with the owner, and the vet or behaviourist must adhere to this decision. * Euthanasia is sometimes the most appropriate solution. Although de-teeting an aggressive dog may prevent the animal from physically harming the owner, the quality of the relationship will most probably remain poor - knowing that your dog is still hell-bent on biting you or others must be distressing. Treat the cause. On another note, tail docking and ear cropping are not performed to treat behavioural problems and are, as Irene Rochlitz said, unnecessary mutilations. Anthony Podberscek BVSc PhD ============================================================================= From: IN%"REPRO@nbc.upenn.edu" 26-FEB-1995 12:17:09.58 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: De-clawing etc. Not all of us on this side of the Atlantic agree with Dr. Cameron. It was once my job at a vet clinic to tend to cats recovering from de-claw surgery. It was also my job to assist with ethanasia procedures. From my perspective, there's no comparison between the two procedures. De- clawing seems much less humane. I even wonder about behavior modification procedures. It seems that the current practice is to try to have owners perform the behavior modification. There are alot of miserable failures resulting in some pretty confused people and pets. I'de like to hear some discussion on these issues. Can we expect that everyone is entitled to have a living animal pet? One that can adapt and be "well behaved" in any of a great variety of household environments? How often are behaviorists coming to the conclusion that euthanasia is the answer? Sue McDonnell Univ Pennsylvania Sch Vet Med "Repro@NBC.UPENN.EDU" ============================================================================= From: IN%"aa266@cleveland.Freenet.Edu" 26-FEB-1995 18:35:02.49 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: I, Declawdius > > >While I understand that many pet owners do not afhere to behavioural >modification programmes (as advised by vets or behaviour consultants), >the trend towards offering surgical solutions to behaviour problems is >disturbing. I acknowledge that D.B. Cameron was probably talking about >de-teething in only desperate cases?? Indeed. For instance, predatory aggression is considered untreatable. That is, predation is such a normal, natural, unlearned behavior that no behavior modification or drug will reliably affect it. However, removing the teeth of a dog that kills other pet dogs or cats may be the only realistic answer to a situation where at least one of the owners refuses to confine the dog and euthanasia or a new home is not an option. Other cases often include dominant aggressive dogs who terrorize elderly or otherwise mentally inflexible clients who are unable to apply any effective behavior modification techniques. Just for my information, please tell me why anterior deteething or declawing is apparently so repugnant to some individuals. I suspect that you would not object if I suggested that I remove half of your pet dog's mandible, or a front leg to save its life because it had bone cancer. > >Pet owners do, in general, like to get quick results and hence a desire >to be prescribed a pill or surgical technique for their pet, to achieve >such results. Achieving positive results from behaviour modification can >take a relatively large amount of time (this of course is dependent on >the problems etc.) and involves much more work on the owner's part. You forgot time, money, the availability of a trained behavior therapist, and the relatively sophisticated mental set that it takes to even consider taking ones pet to a "shrink". Many pet owners, for one reason or another, just do not have (or are willing to invest) the time it takes to do many of the B. Mod. techniques necessary. Money is always a problem for many pet owners. There are thirty (30) certified (I believe that is the proper word) lay animal behavior therapists in the United States. There are eight (8) certified veterinary behavior therapists in the United States. (I may be wrong on both of those statements; the numbers may include Canada.) By fall of 1995 there will be more in each group, but if the total numbers double it will be remarkable. This group is to service 250 MILLION Americans and 100 MILLION pet dogs and cats. Just a for instance: to my knowledge, I am the only veterinarian in the state of Ohio who has a practice limited to animal behavior problems, and I will not be certified, if ever, until at least the fall of 1996. There used to be a couple of trained psychologists in Columbus that did animal therapy, but they seem to have left the area. There are, of course, lay trainers who do this sort of thing, and some are good at it, but a high percentage of them still deal with pet problems with a figurative club with a spike in it. If general practice veterinarians save pet lives and please owners through drug and surgical therapy, can they possibly be forgiven? > >Pet owners have a responsibility to look after their animals and have to >make many choices on their behalf. Surgical techniques should, I feel, >only be recommended when all else fails and where it is deemed better >than euthanasia* However, it seems that techniques such as de-clawing are >becoming more popular in the United States - are vets going straight for >the surgical *answer* and bypassing behaviour modification?? In case you are not aware of realities, no older veterinarians ever received any training in behavior therapy, and only very recently has there been any CE even available to train those with a special interest in animal behavior. The story is pretty much the same for newer graduates with some exceptions. But even there, they have only been exposed to animal behavior concepts. This is NOT a central area of concern in our vet schools. Indeed, in many vet schools the central area of concern is SURVIVAL. Funds for vet colleges have been cut in many areas and are damned thin even in the best situations. The professional staff at the Atlantic College of Vet. Med in Canada all took a 7% cut in pay this year and may even lose their academic freedom in the process. The veterinarian responsible for whatever is done in animal behavior at Ohio State Univ. College of Vet. Med. has not received any funding for his special interest; but he is encouraged. It seems that until this year animal behavior study was not even on the list for consideration for funding; now, at least, it is on the list. This does not even address the fact that the general pet owning public has little understanding of basic animal behavior, show little interest in learning, and very few have any idea that there are a tiny few professionals who have special interest and knowledge in this area. I Hope not. >Ultimately, the decision lies with the owner, and the vet or behaviourist >must adhere to this decision. > >* Euthanasia is sometimes the most appropriate solution. Although >de-teeting an aggressive dog may prevent the animal from physically >harming the owner, the quality of the relationship will most probably >remain poor - knowing that your dog is still hell-bent on biting you or >others must be distressing. On what do you base this comment? Having done a few such procedures and being aware of a few others, there are indeed a few rock-headed dogs who keep on trying to bite, but most soon learn that there days of terrorism are over and they very soon settle down to become decent pets. I suspect that the ones (I use the plural, but I can only remember one who continued on his terroristic path) who continue to assault their owners do so only because the owners are so conditioned to fear the pet that the terrorist pet still maintains his psychological power with his gums. But even there, at least there is no further blood shed. > >Treat the cause. > What do you tell your friend, the diabetic? > >On another note, tail docking and ear cropping are not performed to treat >behavioural problems and are, as Irene Rochlitz said, unnecessary >mutilations. > > > >Anthony Podberscek BVSc PhD > > > > Often I wish there were 25 or 26 hours in a day. Unfortunately, I am stuck with reality. -- DBC (aka D.B. Cameron, DVM) ============================================================================== From: IN%"aa266@cleveland.Freenet.Edu" 26-FEB-1995 20:06:57.16 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: De-clawing etc. > > >Not all of us on this side of the Atlantic agree with Dr. Cameron. It >was once my job at a vet clinic to tend to cats recovering from de-claw >surgery. It was also my job to assist with ethanasia procedures. From >my perspective, there's no comparison between the two procedures. De- >clawing seems much less humane. As part of my graduation ceremonies, I took a vow to save animal life when I could. I have not had reason to question or challenge that vow in all these intervening years. I do not understand equating the loss of ten claws to the loss of a life. To suggest that the claw loss is worse than the loss of a life is, to me, madness. > >I even wonder about behavior modification procedures. It seems that >the current practice is to try to have owners perform the behavior >modification. There are alot of miserable failures resulting in some >pretty confused people and pets. I'de like to hear some discussion on >these issues. Can we expect that everyone is entitled to have a living >animal pet? One that can adapt and be "well behaved" in any of a great >variety of household environments? How often are behaviorists coming to >the conclusion that euthanasia is the answer? > > >Sue McDonnell >Univ. Pennsylvania Sch Vet Med >"Repro@NBC.UPENN.EDU In my mind, that conclusion is not within the practitioner's charge. We are not hired to be God; to decide on life or death. My understanding of our responsibility is that we are to provide knowledge and understanding of the problem, and suggest all possible options, including, where necessary, the option of euthanasia. The decision as to what option to take must be the owner's alone. Going back a little further in the last paragraph, who else but the owner might do the B.M.? It only works for the owner if the owner does it. Is everyone "entitled to have a living animal pet?" Perhaps not, but would you be comfortable being the High Judge of Pet Owners' Rights? And as for the "miserable failures", all medical practitioners lose patients for all manner of reasons. None of us or our pets are going to get out of here alive. But just to select one set of figures relative to the subject: I recently did a paper on the success of therapy for the single largest behavior problem presented to animal behaviorists: canine dominance- associated aggression. In this study, the success rate for therapy was over 80%. The success rate for client satisfaction was over 90%. I suspect that dermatologists, and maybe some others, do not do as well. -- DBC (aka D.B. Cameron, DVM) ============================================================================== From: IN%"IDUNCAN@APS.UoGuelph.CA" 27-FEB-1995 08:42:36.67 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Enrichment Dear all, There seems to be some doubt about what "enrichment" means. In my view, there should be no such doubt. The Oxford English Dictionary states very clearly: "Enrichment" 1. The action or process of enriching, in various senses; the condition of being enriched. 2. The imparting of 'richness' of effect by decorative additions. "Enrich" 1. To make rich, wealthy or opulent. 2. To make rich, endow, with mental or spiritual wealth. 3. To fill or store with wealth; to add to the valuable contents of. 4. To make (the soil etc.) rich in productive power; to fertilize. 5. To make 'rich' or splendid with decoration, often with added notion of costliness. 6. To make 'richer' in quality, flavour, colour, etc.; to heighten, enhance (excellence). Please note that "enrich" DOES NOT MEAN TO ABOLISH POVERTY. In human terms, the Red Cross and Oxfam do wonderful work with refugees and in times of disaster in combatting disease, providing food and shelter and giving protection from oppression. But they never claim to "enrich" the lives of the people they provide for. If such an organization were able to meet all the basic needs of their client group and provide them with, say, some music, or a variety of food and drink from different cultures, or some literature, then they might claim to have provided an "enriched environment". Anne Marie de Passille talks about "selling" our product and says that our "sales pitch" is more likely to be successful if we use the term "environmental enrichment". Is this not fraud? If our customers have in mind the normal dictionary meaning of "enrichment" (see above), then we are deceiving them when what we are doing is (only) improving the environment by providing basic needs. Such deception will return to haunt us. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving environments. many of us have made our life's work the improvement of animals' environments. It is the use of the term "enrichment" I am objecting to. I think that applied ethologists would be much safer (and more honest!) to talk about "environmental improvement" (but see below for exceptions). Jeff Rushen says that Daisy uses the term to mean "an environmental change done to improve welfare". One of my hens here in Guelph, Henrietta, has quite a different view. She says that she does not consider being picked up by two legs rather than one to be "environmental enrichment" although she admits that the two-leg-lift improves her welfare over a one-leg-lift! My main objection to the loose use of "environmental enrichment" is that there may indeed be cases in which an animal's environment can be enriched. We should reserve the term for those occasions. A hypothetical example would be as follows. Suppose that a zoo has an enclosure of chimpanzees. The enclosure is large with some attempt to mimic a "natural" habitat. The animals have access to outdoor and indoor areas and can thus avoid inclement weather. There are lots of structures for exercise. The chimps have to "forage" to obtain a varied well-balanced ration. They are kept in a "natural" social group. However, if cardboard boxes are provided every few days, the chimps "use" these in a variety of ways (they hide in them, they carry food in them, they throw them at each other, they tear them up) and their welfare appears to be better (perhaps the incidence of behaviour suggestive of "boredom" decreases). Moreover, this beneficial effect can be achieved by providing other items such as large paper sacks or wicker baskets which are "used" in somewhat different ways to the cardboard boxes. I would call the provision of these items "environmental enrichment". They don't satisfy any particular need AND different items have a similar beneficial effect. The distinction I am making is NOT, as Jeff suggests, between essential needs and luxury needs. Rather it is between specific needs and much more general needs for something over and above the specific needs. Thus a hen has a strong (perhaps essential) need to perform the appetitive elements of feeding and perform certain elements of nesting (before she lays an egg). These are specific and very strong. She also has very specific needs to dust bathe - but current evidence suggests that these needs are much weaker (depending on external stimulation) than the former needs. These are the strong and weak needs referred to by Jeff - but they are specific. If (A VERY BIG IF) it could be shown that exposure to natural daylight had a beneficial effect on hens' welfare (it has been suggested that the apparent movement of the sun and the variation in illumination provided by clouds might be beneficial), then I would say that would be an example of "environmental enrichment". It now may be clear why I think that species that show exploratory behaviour (described in a previous message) may benefit from enrichment. I also think that these same species may be capable of suffering from "boredom". I also think that the young of many species (species that only have specific needs when adult) show exploratory behaviour, can suffer from "boredom" and can benefit from "enrichment". Apart from all that, we still have lots of research to do in order to identify the specific needs of the species we work with, to measure the strengths of these needs and to make decisions about which of them we should accommodate in our environmental design. let's keep on striving to improve environments and not make too many extravagant claims about enriching them. Yours, Ian Duncan ============================================================================= From: IN%"ABECK@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU" "ALAN M. BECK" 27-FEB-1995 08:51:51.49 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Declaw Dr. Sue McDonnell's comment, "I do not understand equating the loss of ten claws to the loss of a life" is insightful and reminds us that there is a long standing tradition that accepts euthanasia over hardship, at least for pets. The opposite appears to be true for wildlife and humans. A tenent of animal control is that animals are better off dead than exisit in less than ideal conditions in the wild or in an adopted home. What Dave Neill called "preventive death" Better kill an animal lest it die. I suppose the slogan could be "Better Dead than underfed" No animal, any animal, is an in ideal environment. Animals physically and psychology adapt, less they do die. The comfort and joys of a relatively pleasant life is often accepted with its moments and compromises. Good for Dr. McDonnell. ============================================================================= From: IN%"walker@cortex.health.ufl.edu" "Curt Walker" 27-FEB-1995 10:23:05.13 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Postdoc position Dear all, There is an opening for a postdoc trained in behavior here at the University of Florida College of Medicine, and the position is NIH-funded for at least 2 years. The job involves coming up with new ways to measure behavioral effects of spinal cord injury on rats, and would be a great way to learn animal surgery. The work environment is not bad, and of course you get to live in Florida, and the job involves much freedom, because few people in this department know much about the field. Since I do basically the same thing here in another lab, I can describe the job further to interested persons. e-mail me at: Walker@cortex.health.ufl.edu Please let others know about the position. Dept of Neuroscience University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32610 ============================================================================== From: IN%"serpell@pobox.upenn.edu" 27-FEB-1995 16:09:22.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Sanity claws I hestitate to become involved in this discussion about cat declawing but because I have experience of ethical perspectives on this issue from both sides of the Atlantic, I may have something (additional) to contribute. I also feel obliged to correct Alan Beck's misrepresentation of Sue McDonnell who, according to my reading of her original (unrecycled) message, disagreed wholeheartedly with everything he said -- correct me if I'm wrong, Sue! Anyway, getting back to declawing.... Point 1: It strikes me that Beck and Cameron have tied their arguments to a false dichotomy: declaw or euthanasia, as if there were no other viable alternatives. What about: declaw or rehome, or declaw or buy a cheaper sofa, or declaw or stop trying to impress people with the amazing quality of your furnishings? Point 2: Since euthanasia (correctly performed) is humane, it is not strictly speaking a welfare issue. Surgical declawing, as with any other surgical procedure, is a welfare issue if it causes any appreciable post-operative pain, suffering or discomfort. Cameron has cited Landsberg's (1992) paper to reinforce his position, so I will do the same. According to Landsberg's cat owners, 34% of declawed cats experienced "some discomfort or problems when first discharged" and their symptoms included being "tender or sore" in some 26% of cases. Although most recovered completely within two weeks of surgery, 3 animals had not recovered within 2 months, and 1 had difficulty bearing its own weight for at least 4 months after surgery. Landsberg's survey was based on a sample of 276 Ontario cat owners, but he points out that at least 100,000 cats are declawed annually in Ontario. Assuming this survey is representative, then even a conservative estimate would suggest that many hundreds of Ontario cats are experiencing sustained post-operative pain and discomfort as a result of declawing. I will leave it to the reader to extrapolate from this figure to the whole of North America. Point 3: Declawing IS ethically different from neutering. Declawing is primarily a cosmetic procedure performed in order to satisfy the owner's aesthetic craving for unblemished furniture, etc. Only the owner (and the veterinarian) gain from the procedure. Neutering cats, on the contrary, benefits society as a whole, as well as owners and vets, by helping to control cat populations (I am deliberately leaving the cat's interests out of the equation since we have no way of knowing whether, given the choice, it would rather be dead, mutilated, rehomed or sterilized). Most people in Britain believe that the net benefits gained from neutering outweigh the costs in terms of temporary animal suffering, and that the procedure is therefore ethically justifiable (incidently, this is not the case in Norway). However, most Britons would argue that declawing is unjustifiable on these grounds, and would lump it together with other purely cosmetic procedures such as tail-docking, ear-cropping, etc., which are also the subjects of bans. So how (point 4) do we account for such marked Anglo-American differences in attitudes to animal treatment? Declawing is only one of many areas in which there are pronounced differences, and it is a topic which ISAE might be interested in encouraging some research on. However, there is also a fairly simple economic explanation. For many if not the majority of private veterinary practices in the United States (and presumably Canada), declawing is regarded as a 'bread and butter' procedure; one of the economic mainstays, alongside spaying and castration. There would be strong professional resistance to any attempts to restrict the practice. In Briton this was never the case, so a ban was relatively easy to secure. James Serpell serpell@pobox.upenn.edu =============================================================================== From: IN%"BARNETTJ@woody.agvic.gov.au" "John Barnett" 27-FEB-1995 23:07:25.26 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Poultry Welfare Research Dear All, I am preparing a report on poultry welfare-related research. Within this context, I am using a broad definition of welfare (although I do not want to get into arguments on definitions!). I will be concentrating on the laying hen but I am still interested in broiler studies. I would greatly appreciate being provided with details of any 1994 (onwards) conferences, workshops, seminars, symposia, \ reports, etc. that contain any information on recent, current or planned poultry welfare research. I will obviously be undertaking basic library abstracting searchess, but it is my impression that a number of society and other indusstry meetings slip through this service. If details could be provided on title of book, booklet or article and either a citation that I can use for a library or inter-library loan request, or a copy of relevant articles (which would be wonderful), or where I can obtain copies, it would be a great help. To minimize unwanted correspondence on the network, information can be sent directly to John Barnett either via email (address at end) or via post to Victorian Institute of Animal Science, 475 Mickleham Road, Attwood, Victoria 3049, Australia. Any help that can be provided will be much appreciated. With thanks, John Barnett email address = Barnettj@woody.agvic.gov.au ============================================================================= From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.edinburgh.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 28-FEB-1995 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Doctor Fell I am delighted to encounter a Dr Fell after many years of enjoying the famous verse. Come to think of it, the verse has something to say to us about the difficulties of analysing our own feelings, never mind those of others: I do not like thee, Doctor Fell. The reason why, I cannot tell, But this I know, and know right well, I do not like thee, Doctor Fell. No offence, Lloyd! Mike ============================================================================== From: IN%"ABECK@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU" "ALAN M. BECK" 28-FEB-1995 09:11:56.73 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Cat Declaw Dr. Serpell's thoughtful response to my query about social concerns about declawing cats makes many interesting points. Permit me to address them: Point 1: "... declaw or stop trying to impress people with the amazing quality of your furnishings." Dr. Serpell makes the value judgement that concern for ones home and furnishings is trivial. A common criticism of people with strong humane attitudes is that they appear not to have a life or interests beyond their animals. Trivializing the way one choose to live only reinforces that attitude. Point 2: "Since euthanasia (correctly performed) is humane, it is not strictly speaking a welfare issue...." I believe killing is a welfare issue. It appears now that the term "euthanasia" is used whenever an animal is killed painlessly. Although it is true that, the secondary meaning of the word, "euthanasia" is painless death, the real meaning of this noun, not verb, is the action of inducing a painless death of a "person" for reasons assumed to be "merciful." I can forgive the liberty of using the term for all animals, and not just humans, however I cannot ignore that the word also addresses the intent of the act. The painless killing of a suffering animal is indeed an act of euthanasia, but most animal deaths, while deemed necessary, are not necessarily in the animal's best interest. Point 3: "Declawing IS ethically different from neutering. Declawing is primarily a cosmetic procedure performed in order to satisfy the owner's aesthetic craving for unblemished furniture, etc..." I originally raised this issue because there is now good evidence that front paw declawing of cats has human public health value in families where there has been Cat Scratch Disease or where there are family members that are immunosuppressed. This latter population often includes people who can especially benefit from a companion animal. Declaw is just but one of many emerging issues where there is a need to evaluate our relationship with our animal companions. ============================================================================= From: IN%"GStull@aol.com" 28-FEB-1995 16:45:14.71 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Introduction My name is Gordon Stull. I am pleased to be a new subscriber to your ethology network and wish to introduce myself. I am a veterinarian and private companion animal practitioner in southern New Jersey, USA. I am a member of AVAR (Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights). At my clinic, cat declaws, puppy tail docks, and puppy ear trims are NEVER performed. Despite the fact that most clients (animal owners) expect and demand such surgical services for their pets (our patients), our efforts are primarily expended in re-educating and discouraging these clients from elective, animal-mutilation procedures. ==============================================================================