From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 19-FEB-2007 04:56:00.94 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: discussion lists neuroscience Dear All, Any suggestions for discussion lists in neuroscience, with a research rather than a clinical focus? Your knowledgeble help would be most appreciated, as searching the www for such lists left me in despair between "Jews in Recovery from Alcohol and Drug Abuse" and "Beauty.com"... Regards, Anna Olsson Dr Anna Olsson Researcher Laboratory Animal Science group http://www.ibmc.up.pt/group.php?area=4&grupo=18 Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology - IBMC Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Fax +351 22 6099157 From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 19-FEB-2007 06:57:17.86 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Performance axiom passes the test? -----Original Message----- From: Emily Patterson-Kane [mailto:rattitude@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 6:37 PM To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Subject: Re: Performance axiom passes the test? On 14/02/07, Stanley Curtis wrote: > > > I presume we all agree that we cannot directly, objectively -- that is, scientifically -- measure an animal's state of being- I would argue that performance is not more objective, and no more directly reflective of welfare than choice/operant performance and/or the performance of natural behaviors--and that (as proposed by Duncan and Fraser) all three and a bunch of other stuff are part of the overall picture. Welfare is not performance, or preference or species typical behaviour patterns. I would never suggest disregarding perfomance, particulary normal development health and vigor. But I sure wouldn't consider it the whole ball game. That would be animal production science, not animal welfare. And is there really any conflict? Disagreements between methodologies are pretty rare and usually informative. ---------------- Dear All, Again, I have only quickly glanced through the messages posted on the topic of "performance" as it relates to animal welfare. But regarding the above exchange, I think it important to note that the term "performance" has a specific meaning to persons dealing with animal agriculture, i.e., volume of milk produced per cow, number of eggs per hen, weight gained per day of age, number of calves born per age of cow, etc. In short "performance" in animal agriculture is basically used as a synonym for "production performance" of the animal(s) involve. (And by the way, these traits are very quantitative/measurable traits - and thus, can be said to be very objective measures. Also, low levels are often the first indicators that there may be a welfare problem for the animal(s) involved. And I would contend that anyone who has actually assessed an animal care program and has failed to review the production records for the individual animals involved has failed to conduct a proper review of the program. I would also say that anyone who does not look beyond simply the production/performance information has also failed to do a proper job in their assessment of the program. I say this because while low levels or sudden decreases in levels of performance can indicate poor welfare, high levels of performance do not always equate to high levels of welfare.) But the term "performance" in American animal care in general - especially lab animal care - is a term that has a much broader in meaning than simply "production performance level" as the term is used in animal agriculture. Specifically, the ILAR "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" (http://books.nap.edu/readingroom/books/labrats/introduction.html) - a document mandated to be enforced by all USA publicly-funded research institutions - includes the following very important statement: EVALUATION CRITERIA The Guide charges users of research animals with the responsibility of achieving specified outcomes but leaves it up to them how to accomplish these goals. This "performance" approach is desirable because many variables (such as the species and previous history of the animals, facilities, expertise of the people, and research goals) often make prescriptive ("engineering") approaches impractical and unwarranted. Engineering standards are sometimes useful to establish a baseline, but they do not specify the goal or outcome (such as well-being, sanitation, or personnel safety) in terms of measurable criteria as do performance standards. The engineering approach does not provide for interpretation or modification in the event that acceptable alternative methods are available or unusual circumstances arise. Performance standards define an outcome in detail and provide criteria for assessing that outcome, but do not limit the methods by which to achieve that outcome. This performance approach requires professional input and judgment to achieve outcome goals. Optimally, engineering and performance standards are balanced, thereby providing standards while allowing flexibility and judgment based on individual situations. Scientists, veterinarians, technicians, and others have extensive experience and information covering many of the topics discussed in this Guide. Research on laboratory animal management continues to generate scientific information that should be used in evaluating performance and engineering standards. For some issues, insufficient information is available, and continued research into improved methods of animal care and use is needed. ... And it should be noted that unlike the use of the term "performance" by animal agriculturalists, the term "performance standards" in the ILAR Guide is absolutely meant to include subjective criteria such as behavior, etc. that can be said to be associated with the well-being of an individual animal. Best regards to all, Ray Stricklin University of Maryland From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 20-FEB-2007 10:30:38.04 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Performance axiom passes the test? Comment 3 - Suggestion: More Discussion Warranted WRS: " . . . high levels of performance do not always equate to high levels of welfare." SEC: I suggest that more discussion of that statement -- which over the years has become boilerplate in some minds and quarters -- is warranted- With the caveat that the Performance Axiom refers to "a constitutionally fit animal of any kind", I doubt that there are many, if any, cases where an animal that is experiencing fair-being or ill-being is also performing up to its genetic potential- ------------------------------------ Stan, Recently, I had a PhD student work with some of the records from the USDA mastitis study involving over 12 million records. The cows averaged just fewer than two lactations per lifetime. Some of my dairy colleagues tell me that the national average is likely closer to three lactation periods before the typical dairy cow goes to slaughter. Regardless, as the herd average for milk production increases - longevity in the herd for the individual cow decreases. Essentially, we have cows today that are producing milk at such high levels they metabolically cannot simultaneously sustain the combination of 1) milk, 2) reproduction, and 3) body maintenance (immune function as related to mastitis, bones and tissue needed for feet and legs, etc.). As a consequence, the typical dairy cow today goes to slaughter at less than five years of age - at or before the age when biologically she should be at her peak milk-producing ability. Thus, one can contend that the typical dairy cow metabolically burns out (i.e., fails to rebreed, develops feet and leg problems, experiences mastitis, etc.). And this is occurring at such a rapid rate that essentially every structurally sound dairy heifer is needed as a replacement female! Stan, I think in large part the problem is that we (in animal agriculture/animal science) typically view "performance" as simply units of a single product as measured in terms of dollars of income. And this income is based on a herd or flock level. And I don't believe one can defend the collective we refer as "animal agriculture" on the basis that it focuses on individual animal "constitutional fitness" at a time when we have broiler groups numbering into the 10's of thousand of birds on one floor, 2) beef feedlots with pens of a thousand head or more each and a few million head in total, 3) hog operations with hundreds of thousands of sow's each, 4) laying hen houses with 10's of millions of birds each, etc. While I would agree that relative to animal welfare, performance "should be" measured on as a function of the individual animal, this is certainly not the case today. In large scale animal agriculture today (which produces 80% or more of all animal food products), I would argue that production is considered solely - or at least, largely - on the basis of profit having to do with management of herds or flocks of increasingly larger and larger animal numbers. Consideration is given to "constitutional fitness" at the individual animal level only proportional to the estimated dollar value of the individual animal. And this means that the drive for cheap food can result in male dairy calves at times not being worth the cost needed to transport them to market - resulting in their being killed and composted on the farm. And in the case of spent laying hens, the economic worth of a hen beyond her egg laying ability is sometimes nil. Therefore, the "constitutional fitness" consideration given to the individual hen goes no further than the number of eggs she can produce. Once she has completed her one cycle of egg production, she also is sometimes killed and composted on the farm - never entering either the human-food chain or even the pet-food chain. There are a number of studies that demonstrate that the individual's well-being can be compromised as a consequence of humans making economic and(or) performance/production decisions at the herd/flock level. Sorry, to not take the time to pull out the actual references - but one study I recall was by ag economists at ISU some 20 or so years ago. The article included a statement about increased crowding among finishing hogs leading to increased morbidity and mortality. But the article also stated that the animal losses would be relatively small. Therefore, the authors recommended the higher levels of crowding because doing so would lead to higher profit per finishing group of hogs! And there are similar articles reporting that higher death losses associated with increased crowding in caged laying hens can still lead to higher profit per laying cycle for a flock. And having said this - in fairness, Stan - my above comments largely have to do the group versus individual as related to animal welfare. And again, I interpret your comments (above) to imply that performance "should be" considered in relation to the individual animal only. And let me say that in short, Stan - I do agree with your contention that "production-related performance" can be an important indication of animal welfare. But - and these are very important "But's" - performance can be said to be related to an individual's welfare ONLY if: 1) performance is measured at the level of the individual animal, 2) performance is measured in terms of total "fitness" (as pertaining to the individual's "constitutional fitness" - a term you used above), and 3) performance is measured as a function of the given individual's longevity - and not simply as a function of a single production cycle (e.g., one laying cycle, one lactation period, one farrowing cycle, etc.). But Stan, I disagree with the contention that there are likely no instances where an individual's high performance is associated with poor welfare. (And again, this negative relationship between welfare and performance occurs primarily because we in animal agriculture/science tend to have a very narrow definition of performance, i.e., typically we mean a single trait such as growth rate, eggs laid, volume of milk per lactation period, etc.) In fact there are instances where individuals do experience less than optimum welfare, and yet from the viewpoint of the animal owner, the animal's "performance" remains very high. For example, I would point to 1)a laying hen that produces eggs at such a high rate that her bones no longer contain sufficient calcium to have the strength to sustain her body weight, 2) broilers that continue to gain weight at very high rates even though their legs have grown deformed, 3) a veal calf that gains weight at an incredible rate yet is deprived of performing the suckling reflex and rumination behavior associated with normal rumen development, and 4) broiler-breeders that are fed on a skip-a-day regime, but nevertheless continue to produce high levels of fertilized eggs while experiencing motivational states far exceeding that provided them by the feeding regime under which they are kept. And I could name others... And Stan, some of the examples I have listed above - such as the suckling reflex common to veal calves and all other mammals - are of a behavioral/feelings nature, and not specific to the animal's production level. But I contend that animal agriculture must move to include consideration for the subjective states associated with "quality of life experiences" of food animals. Otherwise, I do not believe that animal agriculture can present a moral justification for using animals that will continue to be accepted by the public at large in the long term - but this is a much bigger issue than can appropriately be addressed herein. So Stan, I do support the idea that the individual's "constitutional fitness" can be said to be related to an individual's welfare. But the problem - I would contend - is that animal agriculture too often looks at "performance" far too narrowly, and far too often fails to meet this much broader definition of "performance" as you have presented it. But if your contention is that the animal industries need to redefine "performance" to be inclusive of this broader view as you have defined it, then I am very much in agreement with you that this is a step in the right direction. Best regards to all, Ray Stricklin University of Maryland From: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu" 20-FEB-2007 11:21:31.80 To: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Performance axiom passes the test? Ray- I appreciate the time and thought you have put into your latest posting- I agree with everything you have said- You have hit the nail on the head, and, as a human being with feelings, I am overjoyed by that!- At the very end of the posting, you wrote: = = = "But if your contention is that the animal industries need to redefine "performance" to be inclusive of this broader view as you have defined it, then I am very much in agreement with you that this is a step in the right direction." = = = Indeed, I too think that "redefining 'performance'", as you put it, is what will be needed- Of course, regardless of what animal agriculture does to accomplish what it needs to acco0mplish in terms of assessing and auditing the state of being of the animals it keeps, there are going to have to be some significant changes in the way animal agriculture goes about husbanding the animals- So, all along, I have expected that there would need to be a minor revolution within animal agriculture when consumers made their demands plain enough and powerfully enough to overcome the inertia in agriculture that is typical of teh inertia in any capitalistic, free-enterprise industry- Please let me make a few more short comments about some of your excellent examples- (1) Those cows that burn out on average somewhere between two and three lactations -- with their metabolic and physical maladies and presumed psychic stress -- are not constitutionally fit- And I have been on record for decades as thinking that there is no excuse for keeping constitutionally unfit animals (which to my mind, by the way, includes dogs that require renal dialysis and the like)- (2) WRS: "Consideration is given to "constitutional fitness" at the individual animal level only proportional to the estimated dollar value of the individual animal." SEC: That's why, among other things, there are only a few dozen poultry veterinarians in the USA nowadays- As you and I have been saying since the middle 1970s, this approach by agriculture is going to have to change- The interesting thing is that, "nine times out of ten", to increase an animal's state of ebign is to increase its performance (as newly defined), and to increase its performance is to increase its profitability- It's a win-winner!- (3) WRS: "Once she has completed her one cycle of egg production, . . . " SEC: Animal agriculture is, after all, a business- We do, after all, use animals -- food animals, pet animals, laboratory animals, and so on -- we use them- As for agricultural animals == for example, the laying hen -- the decision as to whether to rejuvenate her and keep hjer for another egglaying cycle is a business decision based on the economic forces that determine what that hen's carcass is worth as human or pet food at the end of her first egglaying season- If she is to be euthanatized, so long as she is euthanatized humanely, in my opinion, we have fulfilled our moral obligations to her- (4) WRS: "Therefore, the authors recommended the higher levels of crowding because doing so would lead to higher profit per finishing group of hogs!" SEC: I have been saying for decades, and so have you, that animal-welfare assessments must be made on the individual-animal basis not on the group basis- Donald Bell handled this topic (with respect to njumber of hens per cage) in masterful fashion at the 1995 NRPAES conference in Indianapolis, showing by a little bit of cowboy arithmetic that false economies do creep into such considerations and decisions- (5) WRS: "But - and these are very important "buts" - performance can be said to be related to an individual's welfare ONLY if: . . . " SEC: I agree with every one of the conditions you set out- Enough already- Thanks again, Ray- Stanley Curtis Department of Animal Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ---- Original message ---- >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:30:26 -0500 >From: Ray Stricklin >Subject: RE: Performance axiom passes the test? >To: applied-ethology@usask.ca > > >Comment 3 - Suggestion: More Discussion Warranted > WRS: " . . . high levels of performance do not always equate to high >levels of welfare." > SEC: I suggest that more discussion of that statement -- which over the >years has become boilerplate in some minds and quarters -- is warranted- >With the caveat that the Performance Axiom refers to "a constitutionally fit >animal of any kind", I doubt that there are many, if any, cases where an >animal that is experiencing fair-being or ill-being is also performing up to >its genetic potential- > >------------------------------------ > >Stan, > >Recently, I had a PhD student work with some of the records from the USDA >mastitis study involving over 12 million records. > >The cows averaged just fewer than two lactations per lifetime. Some of my >dairy colleagues tell me that the national average is likely closer to three >lactation periods before the typical dairy cow goes to slaughter. > >Regardless, as the herd average for milk production increases - longevity in >the herd for the individual cow decreases. Essentially, we have cows today >that are producing milk at such high levels they metabolically cannot >simultaneously sustain the combination of 1) milk, 2) reproduction, and 3) >body maintenance (immune function as related to mastitis, bones and tissue >needed for feet and legs, etc.). > >As a consequence, the typical dairy cow today goes to slaughter at less than >five years of age - at or before the age when biologically she should be at >her peak milk-producing ability. Thus, one can contend that the typical >dairy cow metabolically burns out (i.e., fails to rebreed, develops feet and >leg problems, experiences mastitis, etc.). And this is occurring at such a >rapid rate that essentially every structurally sound dairy heifer is needed >as a replacement female! > >Stan, I think in large part the problem is that we (in animal >agriculture/animal science) typically view "performance" as simply units of >a single product as measured in terms of dollars of income. And this income >is based on a herd or flock level. And I don't believe one can defend the >collective we refer as "animal agriculture" on the basis that it focuses on >individual animal "constitutional fitness" at a time when we have broiler >groups numbering into the 10's of thousand of birds on one floor, 2) beef >feedlots with pens of a thousand head or more each and a few million head in >total, 3) hog operations with hundreds of thousands of sow's each, 4) laying >hen houses with 10's of millions of birds each, etc. > >While I would agree that relative to animal welfare, performance "should be" >measured on as a function of the individual animal, this is certainly not >the case today. In large scale animal agriculture today (which produces 80% >or more of all animal food products), I would argue that production is >considered solely - or at least, largely - on the basis of profit having to >do with management of herds or flocks of increasingly larger and larger >animal numbers. Consideration is given to "constitutional fitness" at the >individual animal level only proportional to the estimated dollar value of >the individual animal. And this means that the drive for cheap food can >result in male dairy calves at times not being worth the cost needed to >transport them to market - resulting in their being killed and composted on >the farm. And in the case of spent laying hens, the economic worth of a hen >beyond her egg laying ability is sometimes nil. Therefore, the >"constitutional fitness" consideration given to the individual hen goes no >further than the number of eggs she can produce. Once she has completed her >one cycle of egg production, she also is sometimes killed and composted on >the farm - never entering either the human-food chain or even the pet-food >chain. > >There are a number of studies that demonstrate that the individual's >well-being can be compromised as a consequence of humans making economic >and(or) performance/production decisions at the herd/flock level. > >Sorry, to not take the time to pull out the actual references - but one >study I recall was by ag economists at ISU some 20 or so years ago. The >article included a statement about increased crowding among finishing hogs >leading to increased morbidity and mortality. But the article also stated >that the animal losses would be relatively small. Therefore, the authors >recommended the higher levels of crowding because doing so would lead to >higher profit per finishing group of hogs! And there are similar articles >reporting that higher death losses associated with increased crowding in >caged laying hens can still lead to higher profit per laying cycle for a >flock. > >And having said this - in fairness, Stan - my above comments largely have to >do the group versus individual as related to animal welfare. And again, I >interpret your comments (above) to imply that performance "should be" >considered in relation to the individual animal only. And let me say that in >short, Stan - I do agree with your contention that "production-related >performance" can be an important indication of animal welfare. > >But - and these are very important "But's" - performance can be said to be >related to an individual's welfare ONLY if: >1) performance is measured at the level of the individual animal, >2) performance is measured in terms of total "fitness" (as pertaining to the >individual's "constitutional fitness" - a term you used above), and >3) performance is measured as a function of the given individual's longevity >- and not simply as a function of a single production cycle (e.g., one >laying cycle, one lactation period, one farrowing cycle, etc.). > >But Stan, I disagree with the contention that there are likely no instances >where an individual's high performance is associated with poor welfare. (And >again, this negative relationship between welfare and performance occurs >primarily because we in animal agriculture/science tend to have a very >narrow definition of performance, i.e., typically we mean a single trait >such as growth rate, eggs laid, volume of milk per lactation period, etc.) > >In fact there are instances where individuals do experience less than >optimum welfare, and yet from the viewpoint of the animal owner, the >animal's "performance" remains very high. For example, I would point to 1)a >laying hen that produces eggs at such a high rate that her bones no longer >contain sufficient calcium to have the strength to sustain her body weight, >2) broilers that continue to gain weight at very high rates even though >their legs have grown deformed, 3) a veal calf that gains weight at an >incredible rate yet is deprived of performing the suckling reflex and >rumination behavior associated with normal rumen development, and 4) >broiler-breeders that are fed on a skip-a-day regime, but nevertheless >continue to produce high levels of fertilized eggs while experiencing >motivational states far exceeding that provided them by the feeding regime >under which they are kept. And I could name others... > >And Stan, some of the examples I have listed above - such as the suckling >reflex common to veal calves and all other mammals - are of a >behavioral/feelings nature, and not specific to the animal's production >level. But I contend that animal agriculture must move to include >consideration for the subjective states associated with "quality of life >experiences" of food animals. Otherwise, I do not believe that animal >agriculture can present a moral justification for using animals that will >continue to be accepted by the public at large in the long term - but this >is a much bigger issue than can appropriately be addressed herein. > >So Stan, I do support the idea that the individual's "constitutional >fitness" can be said to be related to an individual's welfare. But the >problem - I would contend - is that animal agriculture too often looks at >"performance" far too narrowly, and far too often fails to meet this much >broader definition of "performance" as you have presented it. But if your >contention is that the animal industries need to redefine "performance" to >be inclusive of this broader view as you have defined it, then I am very >much in agreement with you that this is a step in the right direction. > >Best regards to all, > >Ray Stricklin >University of Maryland > > From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 21-FEB-2007 10:21:34.88 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: politics ethics and sow stalls Haven't read it yet but this paper seems very relevant for the recent debate: Science, pigs, and politics: A New Zealand perspective on the phase-out of sow stalls Author(s): Weaver SA, Morris MC Source: JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS 17 (1): 51-66 2004 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 48 Times Cited: 3 Abstract: Sows housed in stalls are kept in such extreme confinement that they are unable to turn around. In some sectors of the pork industry, sows are subjected to this degree of confinement for almost their entire lives (apart from the brief periods associated with mating). While individual confinement is recognized by farmers and animal welfare community organizations alike, as a valuable tool in sow husbandry (to mitigate against aggression), what remains questionable from an animal welfare point of view is the necessity to confine sows in such small spaces. In 2001, the Australian Journal of Agricultural Research published a review article on the science associated with the use of the sow stall, and claimed that "no scientific evidence to support the recommendation in the Code of Practice advising against housing of sows in stalls followed by housing in crates" (Barnett et al., 2001, p. 21). If all the available scientific publications on the animal welfare implications of sow stalls are consulted (many of which did not feature in the above review), then one will indeed find scientific evidence to support recommendations against the housing of sows in stalls. Because there is science on both sides of this policy divide, the argument to defend the use of sow stalls, therefore, is not one of science vs public opinion, but one of ethics. An analysis of the scientific arguments against the use of the sow stall should be used to encourage ethical debate on this issue. As an ethical debate, the issue of the use of the sow stall can then focus on the degree of suffering we as a society are willing to tolerate in agricultural practices, and the animal welfare costs associated with extreme economies of scale in sow stocking rates, rather than get bogged down in red herring debates over whether there is any suffering at all. Author Keywords: animal welfare; New Zealand; pigs; pork industry; sow stalls Dr Anna Olsson Researcher Laboratory Animal Science group http://www.ibmc.up.pt/group.php?area=4&grupo=18 Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology - IBMC Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Fax +351 22 6099157 From: IN%"csmith35@nycap.rr.com" "cynthia smith" 22-FEB-2007 17:00:52.90 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: sow housing It is good to see the list is alive and well! For those with an interest in swine housing here are some additional resources available on the web. Feel free to visit our swine page. It is listed under "Farm Animals---Livestock Species---Select Swine" http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=3&tax_level=3&tax_subject=170&topic_id=1488&level3_id=5399&level4_id=0&level5_id=0&placement_default=0 Here is a website that resulted from a collaborative project in the US between academia, government, and nonprofits to gather info on sow housing a few years back. http://www.ces.purdue.edu/pork/sowhousing/index.html Compared to many other species with the exception of perhaps poultry, the shear volume of literature published on swine housing is large and diverse and written about across many countries and states, with different climates, varying resource availability, legislation, public opinion, etc. Cynthia Smith, M.S. Technical Information Specialist USDA/ARS National Agricultural Library Animal Welfare Information Center www.nal.usda.gov/awic From: IN%"jwojo9@yahoo.com" "Janina Wojciechowska" 22-FEB-2007 17:25:06.22 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: IN%"jwojo9@yahoo.com" "Nina Wojciechowska" Subj: feline declawing I was wondering if anyone can recommend any scientific articles regarding the negative effects of declawing in cats (which is still a legal practice in most of North America)? A colleague of mine who works in companion animal practice is at odds with her partner (in practice) about performing elective feline declaw surgery in their practice. She would like to change their policy regarding declaws i.e. not make it an elective procedure (which is often performed when the ovariohysterectomy is done). Declawing is often used as a cop-out before trying other methods to reduce scratching (e.g. scratching posts, etc). It's an "easy" option for cat owners and their choice to do so is not often challenged by veterinarians. This vet would like to have scientific evidence regarding the disadvantages and the side effects (i.e. short and long term) of declawing in order to drive her point home with her colleague, who sees no issue with performing elective declaws. Can anyone suggest any useful articles to assist her in effecting this positive change? Regards, Nina Wojciechowska DVM, MSc ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail From: IN%"SBowers@rfmd.com" "Sue Bowers" 22-FEB-2007 17:51:23.90 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: feline declawing I'm not sure if this is quite what you're looking for, but here is one veterinarian's site: http://www.declawing.com/ with a large section on technical stuff- http://www.declawing.com/htmls/declawing.htm and on a less technical note, here is a very comprehensive site with info on the drawbacks, vets who don't declaw, etc as well as alternative ways to deal with having a whole, unmodified cat: http://www.theanimalspirit.com/declaw.html I would be VERY interested in others' answers to this question, as I am always looking for new "ammunition" to defend cats against the practice of elective amputation. ~Sue! -----Original Message----- From: Janina Wojciechowska [mailto:jwojo9@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:25 PM To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Cc: Nina Wojciechowska Subject: feline declawing I was wondering if anyone can recommend any scientific articles regarding the negative effects of declawing in cats (which is still a legal practice in most of North America)? A colleague of mine who works in companion animal practice is at odds with her partner (in practice) about performing elective feline declaw surgery in their practice. She would like to change their policy regarding declaws i.e. not make it an elective procedure (which is often performed when the ovariohysterectomy is done). Declawing is often used as a cop-out before trying other methods to reduce scratching (e.g. scratching posts, etc). It's an "easy" option for cat owners and their choice to do so is not often challenged by veterinarians. This vet would like to have scientific evidence regarding the disadvantages and the side effects (i.e. short and long term) of declawing in order to drive her point home with her colleague, who sees no issue with performing elective declaws. Can anyone suggest any useful articles to assist her in effecting this positive change? Regards, Nina Wojciechowska DVM, MSc From: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford" 23-FEB-2007 07:53:53.26 To: IN%"SBowers@rfmd.com" "Sue Bowers" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" Subj: RE: feline declawing Hi Nina, Here is another site that has a list of articles pertaining to Feline Onychectomy: http://www.vin.com/VINDBPub/SearchPB/Proceedings/PR05000/PR00016.htm I've attached an article by Gary Patronek as well that summarizes some of the work up to 2001. Ruth Newberry at Washington State U might have some more information on recent stuff (she was a co-author for the Cambridge et al 2000 study and I think there was more on the way from that). Cheers, Janice Siegford, MS, PhD, CAAAB Research Assistant Professor Animal Behavior and Welfare Group 1287C Anthony Hall Department of Animal Science Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 517-432-8212 office 517-432-1396 lab 517-353-1699 fax Sue Bowers writes: > I'm not sure if this is quite what you're looking for, but here is one > veterinarian's site: > http://www.declawing.com/ > with a large section on technical stuff- > http://www.declawing.com/htmls/declawing.htm > > and on a less technical note, here is a very comprehensive site with > info on the drawbacks, vets who don't declaw, etc as well as alternative > ways to deal with having a whole, unmodified cat: > http://www.theanimalspirit.com/declaw.html > > I would be VERY interested in others' answers to this question, as I am > always looking for new "ammunition" to defend cats against the practice > of elective amputation. > ~Sue! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Janina Wojciechowska [mailto:jwojo9@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:25 PM > To: applied-ethology@usask.ca > Cc: Nina Wojciechowska > Subject: feline declawing > > I was wondering if anyone can recommend any scientific articles > regarding the negative effects of declawing in cats (which is still a > legal practice in most of North America)? A colleague of mine who works > in companion animal practice is at odds with her partner (in practice) > about performing elective feline declaw surgery in their practice. She > would like to change their policy regarding declaws i.e. not make it an > elective procedure (which is often performed when the ovariohysterectomy > is done). Declawing is often used as a cop-out before trying other > methods to reduce scratching (e.g. scratching posts, etc). It's an > "easy" option for cat owners and their choice to do so is not often > challenged by veterinarians. > > This vet would like to have scientific evidence regarding the > disadvantages and the side effects (i.e. > short and long term) of declawing in order to drive her point home with > her colleague, who sees no issue with performing elective declaws. Can > anyone suggest any useful articles to assist her in effecting this > positive change? > > Regards, > Nina Wojciechowska DVM, MSc From: IN%"honeyq@ksu.edu" "Kari Wallentine" 23-FEB-2007 09:57:48.45 To: IN%"jwojo9@yahoo.com" "Janina Wojciechowska" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" Subj: RE: feline declawing Hi Nina, This article may be of assistance to your colleague: Cloutier, S., R.C. Newberry, A.J. Cambridge, and K.M. Tobias. 2005. Behavioural signs of postoperative pain in cats following onychectomy or tenectomy surgery. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 92(4):325-335. Best regards, Kari Wallentine, DVM Manhattan, KS Janina Wojciechowska wrote: > I was wondering if anyone can recommend any scientific > articles regarding the negative effects of declawing > in cats (which is still a legal practice in most of > North America)? A colleague of mine who works in > companion animal practice is at odds with her partner > (in practice) about performing elective feline declaw > surgery in their practice. She would like to change > their policy regarding declaws i.e. not make it an > elective procedure (which is often performed when the > ovariohysterectomy is done). Declawing is often used > as a cop-out before trying other methods to reduce > scratching (e.g. scratching posts, etc). It's an > "easy" option for cat owners and their choice to do so > is not often challenged by veterinarians. > > This vet would like to have scientific evidence > regarding the disadvantages and the side effects (i.e. > short and long term) of declawing in order to drive > her point home with her colleague, who sees no issue > with performing elective declaws. Can anyone suggest > any useful articles to assist her in effecting this > positive change? > > Regards, > Nina Wojciechowska DVM, MSc > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Never Miss an Email > Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! > http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail > > From: IN%"peterhaskins@bigpond.com" "peterhaskins" 23-FEB-2007 22:36:35.66 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Performance axiom passes the test? From: "Rick Bogle" "... the animals deserve ..." > What is the scientific basis for the claim that an animal "deserves" any > consideration what-so-ever? What is the "repeatable, verifiable, objective scientific evidence" upon which this offhand claim is made?> Well, exactly. But a logical consequence of this is also the question "What scientific basis for the claim that a human animal "deserves" any consideration what-so-ever? What is the "repeatable, verifiable, objective scientific evidence" upon which THIS offhand claoim is made? The 'hard' sciences do not and cannot tell us what is ethically acceptable or not. But the social sciences can definitely tell us what behaviour is advantageous both in the short term and in the long term. We know, from the Social Sciences that children who grow up abusing non-human animals frequently grow up to be violent and antisocial adults. There is a proved correlation of animal abuse with spouse abuse. I've not seen a scientific reference comparing nations' or other social human groups' attitude to animals with those of their attitudes and treatment of fellow humans. But I would be surprised if one doesn't exist. History on the other hand can help us, if only we open our minds enough to learn from history' Does it belittle us to treat our domestic animals with no considersation of their comfort and mental health? Or is it merely a reflection of our violent and cruel society? The 'circuses' (gladiators, lions, etc) of Rome are believed to have been intentional to blunt the populations' sensitivity to bloodshed and slaughter and therefore keep their armies strong. As are the bullfights of Spain, the cockfighting and bullbaiting in past and present societies. I believe thast in the early days in Australia, and definitely the early days in America the native races and the African raced were considered as a different species and organised "hunts" of these people were not uncommon. Does the belief that it is acceptable to keep domestic animals in situations where those animals suffer needlessly correlate with a similar attitude to the environment and thus shorten the reign of 'Homo sapiens' on this planet? We wouldn't be the first plague species to evolve, increase our population geometrically, destroy the environment under which we evolved, then become extinct. And does this matter anyway? Cheers, Jenny Haskins Coffs Harbour Australia From: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu" 23-FEB-2007 23:12:59.10 To: IN%"peterhaskins@bigpond.com" "peterhaskins", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Jenny Haskins and gestation housing Jenny Haskins and others- Your comments and queries reflect important insights- I think their fulfillment should be based upon biologic principles lying ar the crux of the issue of the housing of pregnant sows- Wild and feral swine herds tppically comprise groups of around six females that are visited by one or more boars during the seasonal mating periods- The females in one of these herds typically belong to a matriarchal hierarchy, with a matriarach at the head and her daughters, granddaughters, and perhaps great-granddaughters completing the natural group- They typically do not allow transient female intruders let alone do they welcome unrelated group memebrs, and they ruthlessly enfore this reality "tooth and hoof" . . . nature isn't all kind and gentle, in fact -- as predicetd by the notion of survival of the fittest -- most of it is selfish- Stanley Curtis Department of Animal Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 07:52:04 +1100 >From: peterhaskins >Subject: Re: Gestation stalls and ramifications >To: ethology > > >With regard to this topic, I wonder what the ethological facts are re pigs. > >What size groups do they live in naturally, and how and where does a sow >give birth and rear her piglets? > >It just seems to me that living in a pen might be just as unnatural as >living in stalls, with the added danger of aggression being considerably >increased with the forced cohabitation and closeness of the individuals. > >I know that work done on wild pigs may not be applicable to domesticated >pigs, but I wonder what research has been done re group living in both >varieties. > >Yours sincerely, > >Jenny Haskins >Coffs Harbour Australia > From: IN%"rbogle@sonic.net" "Rick Bogle" 24-FEB-2007 11:42:35.64 To: IN%"peterhaskins@bigpond.com" "peterhaskins", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Performance axiom passes the test? " The 'circuses' (gladiators, lions, etc) of Rome are believed to have been intentional to blunt the populations' sensitivity to bloodshed and slaughter and therefore keep their armies strong. As are the bullfights of Spain, the cockfighting and bullbaiting in past and present societies. " This sounds more like conjecture than an observation. I'm not aware that Spain is particularly known for its strong army. It seems a rather straightforward observation that we like to see others being hurt. The list of facts supporting this would include things like the long-running America's Funniest Home Videos, the movie Jackass, boxing, wrestling, Fox's 24, and staged animal fighting. Hunting stories told by my sixth grade students were never about the forest, the camaraderie, etc., they were always about where the deer was struck, the injury, how long it took to die, etc. Only adults dress up this lust with nicety. I know this will push many a button, but in societies made up of species with this predilection, we should not wonder that it is so easy for those working in industries based on exploitation to develop a callousness to suffering or else that the industries naturally select for employees relatively unaffected by suffering. This is why every improvement is such an uphill battle. R > -----Original Message----- > From: peterhaskins [mailto:peterhaskins@bigpond.com] > Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 10:37 PM > To: ethology > Subject: Re: Performance axiom passes the test? > > > > From: "Rick Bogle" > > "... the animals deserve ..." > > > What is the scientific basis for the claim that an animal > "deserves" any > > consideration what-so-ever? > What is the "repeatable, verifiable, objective scientific evidence" upon > which this offhand claim is made?> > > > Well, exactly. But a logical consequence of this is also the question > "What scientific basis for the claim that a human animal "deserves" any > consideration what-so-ever? What is the "repeatable, verifiable, > objective > scientific evidence" upon which THIS offhand claoim is made? > > The 'hard' sciences do not and cannot tell us what is ethically > acceptable > or not. But the social sciences can definitely tell us what behaviour is > advantageous both in the short term and in the long term. > > We know, from the Social Sciences that children who grow up abusing > non-human animals frequently grow up to be violent and antisocial adults. > There is a proved correlation of animal abuse with spouse abuse. > > I've not seen a scientific reference comparing nations' or other social > human groups' attitude to animals with those of their attitudes and > treatment of fellow humans. But I would be surprised if one doesn't > exist. History on the other hand can help us, if only we open our minds > enough to learn from history' > > Does it belittle us to treat our domestic animals with no > considersation of > their comfort and mental health? Or is it merely a reflection of our > violent and cruel society? The 'circuses' (gladiators, lions, > etc) of Rome > are believed to have been intentional to blunt the populations' > sensitivity > to bloodshed and slaughter and therefore keep their armies > strong. As are > the bullfights of Spain, the cockfighting and bullbaiting in past and > present societies. I believe thast in the early days in Australia, and > definitely the early days in America the native races and the > African raced > were considered as a different species and organised "hunts" of > these people > were not uncommon. > > Does the belief that it is acceptable to keep domestic animals in > situations > where those animals suffer needlessly correlate with a similar > attitude to > the environment and thus shorten the reign of 'Homo sapiens' on this > planet? We wouldn't be the first plague species to evolve, increase our > population geometrically, destroy the environment under which we evolved, > then become extinct. And does this matter anyway? > > Cheers, > > Jenny Haskins > Coffs Harbour Australia > > > >