From: IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "Deborah McWilliams" 15-FEB-1999 09:50:41.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animals centre of gravity? Hi Vivian! > > Seriously, I suggest taking a trip with a load with you in the > >back with them (providing for your safety, of course). Take a video > >camera with you. For example, if you had a "perch" up in the truck > >rafters (safety belted in, of course) where you had a "bird's eye > >view" and could record with the video. It would answer a lot of > >questions and create a lot more questions. Bring kleenex. > > You could set up the cameras and not have to be there to fall off your perch. > > Vivian > dog trainer First time, you want to correlate "actual vision" with the picture you get from the video. Depth perception a la video can sometimes be a fooler. Also, an actual viewing would give info on best spots to set up camera(s). DebMcW dmcwilliams@aps.uoguelph.ca Deborah A. McWilliams Room 043, Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2X7 From: IN%"dreyn@sirius.com" 15-FEB-1999 10:15:56.64 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-Ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Hypericum Perforatum ( St Johns Wort ) Scott Line, DVM, PhD wrote: > While St. John's Wort may be less expensive and it may be attractive to some > people because it's more "natural", no one to my knowledge has demonstrated > that it's safe and effective for use in dogs in the situations where > fluoxetine may be indicated. For what it's worth - I have recently learned that hypericum prepared in a homeopathic tincture is commonly used by many wildlife rehabbers with positive results. Typically, it is helpful in cases of nerve damage (crushed digits, spasms, etc.) For calming stressed animals (including dogs), ignatia is often used as a safe alternative. Donna Reynolds (Lindsay Wildlife Museum - Walnut Creek, CA) From: IN%"S.Gragert@t-online.de" 15-FEB-1999 10:54:49.30 To: IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "Deborah McWilliams" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" Subj: RE: animals centre of gravity? Hi Deborah, thanks for your reply > > When slaughter pigs are carried at a loading density of 0.5 m per pig, > > how much of this area does an individual animal fill seen from above? > > Seriously, I suggest taking a trip with a load with you in the > back with them (providing for your safety, of course). Take a video > camera with you. For example, if you had a "perch" up in the truck > rafters (safety belted in, of course) where you had a "bird's eye > view" and could record with the video. It would answer a lot of > questions and create a lot more questions. Bring kleenex. Thank you but no. I already travelled with a load of pigs on a old eastern german version of a transporter which had no suspension at all and had difficulties to walk straight on for about half a year after (and not because the experience was so depressing that I started drinking), I even almost bumped into my bedroom wall once. I hope I do not need to take measurements myself but in case I had to I would put pigs into a pen of known size and take fotos from above at the farm. > In case transport death occurs in pigs, when does it happen? In ten > > short time (90 min) commercial transports there was only one transport > > in which all pigs survived, but I was only once able to time the death > > of a pig and that one died about 25 minutes after start. However one of > > the drivers told me that pigs that die always die at the beginning of > > the journey. > > 1) At the beginning of one trip I made with a driver, the driver > made a quick stop at a red light (I was in the truck cab with the > driver). Every pig in the back slid forward with a whoomph! > (nontechnical term) into the front of the transport. They were still > in a pile when we got to the stockyards. That is what I am after, the maximum free space next to such a pile. Only that I am interested in movements to the side. When all animals are moved to one side the free space on the other side is number of animals in the compartement times x (x is the room each animal theoretically has depentend on loading density minus the part the animals body really covers) When I know x and how much the weight of the animals in relation to the weight of the vehicle is I hope to calculate the possible dislocation of the vehicles centre of gravity during cornering. I hope to find values that will wake up the people who do not care if animals are thrown around in transporters. But when the stability of the lorry itself was at risk, perhaps experts in loading safety and animal protectors could join their forces against the powerful lobby of the transport industry. > 2) Fasting animals before transport may make them more susceptible to > stress-related injuries and death. I would be interested in some references for that. All the literature I know states exactly the opposite. Best wishes Stephanie Gragert ------------------------------- Stephanie Gragert Kochstr. 59 04275 Leipzig Germany Tel/Fax 0049 341 3304368 From: IN%"S.Gragert@t-online.de" 15-FEB-1999 10:55:08.45 To: IN%"bregman@interactive.net" "VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" Subj: RE: animals centre of gravity? Dear Vivian, > >Dear All, > >In case transport death occurs in pigs, when does it happen? In ten > >short time (90 min) commercial transports there was only one transport > >in which all pigs survived, but I was only once able to time the death > >of a pig and that one died about 25 minutes after start. However one of > >the drivers told me that pigs that die always die at the beginning of > >the journey. > >What do you know or think? > > > I know nothing about this except that I wonder how does the driver > mentioned know that they always die at the beginning of the journey. > Does he check them every half hour?? As you say, he does not check them regulary. What the driver told me was that he often hears the pigs squeaking before they die and when the sound dies he knows the pig is dead. It is only his opinion and experience of course but he made the experience that when he hears a pig squeaking for some time he will have a dead pig on arrival. Best wishes Stephanie Gragert -------------------------- Stephanie Gragert Kochstr. 59 04275 Leipzig Germany Tel/Fax 0049 341 3304368 From: IN%"Petra.Mertens@lrz.uni-muenchen.de" "Dr. Petra A. Mertens" 15-FEB-1999 11:46:32.82 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: fluoxetine As Scott indicated, there is little known so far. However, there is a relatively recent study published late last year on the use of fluoxetine in dogs. Wynchank, D., Berk, M. (1998). Behavioral changes in dogs with acral lick dermatitits during a 2 month extension phase of fluoxetine treatment. Hum. Psychopharmacol. 13: 435-437. Wynchank, D., Berk, M. (1998). Fluoxetine treatment of a acral lick dermatitis in dogs: a placebo-controlled randomized double blind trial. Depression Anxiety 8: 21-23. Best wishes, Petra Dr. Petra A. Mertens Fachtierärztin für Verhaltenskunde Institut für Tierhygiene, Verhaltenskunde und Tierschutz Tierärztliche Fakultät Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Schwere-Reiter-Strasse 9 D - 80797 München tel: 0049 (0)89/155640, 152029, 152028 fax: 0049 (0)89/1578277 petra.mertens@lrz.uni-muenchen.de From: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" 15-FEB-1999 13:08:48.08 To: IN%"mappleby@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Controlled by my genes At 10:01 AM 2/15/99 +0000, you wrote: >Dear All > >> I always figured, when I first heard about this, that I was only a pawn in >> the "hands" of my genes. > >I'm just reading Robert Wright's The Moral Animal - an account of >evolutionary psychology by someone who I think is more of a >journalist than a scientist - and finding it similarly, depressingly >deterministic. It seems extraordinary that people concerned about >animal welfare have spent so much time and effort arguing that >animals are not just machines, only to have others assume >unthinkingly that all animals including humans are effectively >machines, operated wholly by their genes. > I keep pinned to my board a quotation I saw on this network, from >someone called Hebb: 'Behavior is controlled 100% by genetics and >100% by the environment.' The influences of the environment are >immensely complex, and in at least the case of humans they include >self-reflection and conscious decision making. I find evolutionary >psychology fascinating, and its proponents certainly do not deny the >existence of the human mind or its involvement in human behaviour, >nor do they see the mind as mechanistically produced by genes. > >Mike Appleby > I'm currently taking some graduate psychology classes and find myself equally depressed by the mechanistic determinism seen in the Stimulus--Response psychologists' way of looking at things. They do allow that some small, reflexive types of behaviors, like jumping away from a hot surface, are genetically determined, but the learning text being used in one of my classes even tries to explain imprinting as a type of contingency learning. And in fact, the teacher said that we would be discussing learning the entire semester, but did not plan to include the mind or the brain in these discussions. When I asked him how can one learn about learning without discussing the brain, he told me that this was for biologists, not psychologists. It seems to me that if this chasm is being so strictly maintained, there is not a hope of seeing the whole picture, because I feel that behavior is so much a result of the *interaction* of the nature/nurture paradigm-- and as long as scientists stay on their own philosophical side of the fence, the interaction can never be explored. I despair of finding a field of Integrative animal behavior, where genetics, learning from past experiences, and the current state of the organism with its physiological condition, are all considered in an integrated whole. The only ray of hope to me is a cognitive psychology class that I am taking. Here is where we find the concepts of self reflection and conscious decision making (my first paper for this class was on the effects of emotion on memory, where I argued that what an organism feels can have a significant effect on what it learns). However, cognitive psychology appears to only be dealing with humans at the moment (perhaps I am wrong about this, does anyone know of research or publications specifically applying cognitive psychology principles to animal behavior?) It seems that the approach of the Gestalt psychologists could be applied to animal behavior quite well. They maintain that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. And when looking at evolutionary explanations for behavior, I feel that one mistake occurs and that is the concept that if a behavior is present, it must have evolved for a reason. But that doesn't incorporate the issue of chance. Not everything that an animal has, physically or behaviorally, is under the same degree of selective pressure. Some things simply have no selective pressure for or against them--or the pressure is not enough to make them change. So say that there are two populations of the same species. They have drifted apart physically and genetically and population #1 has behavior A while population #2 has behavior B. The behaviors are significantly different from each other, perhaps even opposite from each other, but neither has a selective pressure on it. They simply have this behavior in their genetic repertoire and there has been no selective pressure to not have it. If you mixed the two populations, you could conclude that this behavior was insignificant because it is not seen in that many animals and others do something different. But then chance shows up and a blizzard or landslide or something wipes out population #1. So now a scientist looks at the animals, the descendants of population #2, and they are all doing the same behavior and the conclusion would be that there must have been a selective pressure on that behavior and the scientist would look for the reasons. But chance played just as much a role in the behavior being present as did natural selection! We want there to be reasons for everything and hate to think that something might simply not have a reason. And I have my doubts that a research project that concludes that a behavior doesn't have an adaptive significance would continue to get funded. Chance is an issue we simply don't want to deal with. Janice Willard DVM, MS From: IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "Deborah McWilliams" 15-FEB-1999 14:25:44.20 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Controlled by my genes This is in reply to Janice who brought environment into the genetic discussion: Richard Dawkins the "meme" - a cultural (environmental) equivalent to the gene that we inherit. P.S. Janice: I cannot imagine any psychology prof saying the brain was for biology and not psychology. How has this guy survived in the academic world? DebMcW dmcwilliams@aps.uoguelph.ca Deborah A. McWilliams Room 043, Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2X7 From: IN%"VerkerkG@drc.co.nz" "Verkerk, Gwyn" 15-FEB-1999 14:42:26.88 To: IN%"mappleby@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk" "'Mike Appleby'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Controlled by my genes I've taken the bait on this one! To look first at the human situation which is perhaps the only one that we are qualified to make comment about: I don't consider that my existence as the tool whereby my genes perpetuate themselves is inconsistent with ensuring that the level of welfare that I enjoy is optimised. In fact it would be in the best interests of my DNA to ensure that my welfare is optimised - that is the best way for my DNA to ensure that it is successful. This optimisation does not end with my success or otherwise at producing a child/children - it is still in the interests of that DNA to ensure that my longevity is preserved so that the DNA that has been successfully handed on is also given the best chance of survival through my support of my offspring. Extending this to our responsibilities towards improving animal welfare: Thus our responsibities towards optimising the welfare of the animals over which we exert stewardship also becomes important. Those animals are important to our own personal well-being - whether through providing protein for our diets, or the means whereby we can replenish our personal energy (i.e. by enjoying their existence - getting into dangerous territory here I know (!)) - and thus they become are important to our personal DNA as well. It can from this be construed that the behavioural patterns which some of us display which extend concern for our fellow creatures may also be driven by our genes. The only place that this argument falls down is in the extension of aid to fellow human beings - why would our own DNA programme us to work to ensure the survival of other human DNA, apart from our relatives and our immediate community - although even that community is broadening as we use the contextual framework of the global community these days. Cheers Gwyneth Verkerk BVSc DPhil Dairying Research Corporation Private Bag 3123 Hamilton New Zealand pH (+64) 7 838 5694 From: IN%"JSWANSON@oz.oznet.ksu.edu" 15-FEB-1999 14:49:57.63 To: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Controlled by my genes If I am not mistaken the "blizzard" or "landslide" effect on the population you described is known as disruptive(diversifying)selection (also recognized as a type of natural selection (converse to a stabilizing selection). I am stretching my memory a bit here but I think the conditions you have described are accounted for by natural selection. Janice Swanson Date sent: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:48:52 -0800 From: Janice Willard Subject: Re: Controlled by my genes To: Mike Appleby Copies to: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > At 10:01 AM 2/15/99 +0000, you wrote: > >Dear All > > > >> I always figured, when I first heard about this, that I was only a pawn > >> in the "hands" of my genes. > > > >I'm just reading Robert Wright's The Moral Animal - an account of > >evolutionary psychology by someone who I think is more of a > >journalist than a scientist - and finding it similarly, depressingly > >deterministic. It seems extraordinary that people concerned about animal > >welfare have spent so much time and effort arguing that animals are not > >just machines, only to have others assume unthinkingly that all animals > >including humans are effectively machines, operated wholly by their > >genes. > > > I keep pinned to my board a quotation I saw on this network, from > >someone called Hebb: 'Behavior is controlled 100% by genetics and > >100% by the environment.' The influences of the environment are > >immensely complex, and in at least the case of humans they include > >self-reflection and conscious decision making. I find evolutionary > >psychology fascinating, and its proponents certainly do not deny the > >existence of the human mind or its involvement in human behaviour, nor do > >they see the mind as mechanistically produced by genes. > > > >Mike Appleby > > > > I'm currently taking some graduate psychology classes and find myself > equally depressed by the mechanistic determinism seen in the > Stimulus--Response psychologists' way of looking at things. They do allow > that some small, reflexive types of behaviors, like jumping away from a > hot surface, are genetically determined, but the learning text being used > in one of my classes even tries to explain imprinting as a type of > contingency learning. And in fact, the teacher said that we would be > discussing learning the entire semester, but did not plan to include the > mind or the brain in these discussions. When I asked him how can one > learn about learning without discussing the brain, he told me that this > was for biologists, not psychologists. It seems to me that if this chasm > is being so strictly maintained, there is not a hope of seeing the whole > picture, because I feel that behavior is so much a result of the > *interaction* of the nature/nurture paradigm-- and as long as scientists > stay on their own philosophical side of the fence, the interaction can > never be explored. I despair of finding a field of Integrative animal > behavior, where genetics, learning from past experiences, and the current > state of the organism with its physiological condition, are all considered > in an integrated whole. > > The only ray of hope to me is a cognitive psychology class that I am > taking. Here is where we find the concepts of self reflection and > conscious decision making (my first paper for this class was on the > effects of emotion on memory, where I argued that what an organism feels > can have a significant effect on what it learns). However, cognitive > psychology appears to only be dealing with humans at the moment (perhaps I > am wrong about this, does anyone know of research or publications > specifically applying cognitive psychology principles to animal behavior?) > It seems that the approach of the Gestalt psychologists could be applied > to animal behavior quite well. They maintain that the whole is greater > than the sum of the parts. > > And when looking at evolutionary explanations for behavior, I feel that > one mistake occurs and that is the concept that if a behavior is present, > it must have evolved for a reason. But that doesn't incorporate the > issue of chance. Not everything that an animal has, physically or > behaviorally, is under the same degree of selective pressure. Some things > simply have no selective pressure for or against them--or the pressure is > not enough to make them change. > > So say that there are two populations of the same species. They have > drifted apart physically and genetically and population #1 has behavior A > while population #2 has behavior B. The behaviors are significantly > different from each other, perhaps even opposite from each other, but > neither has a selective pressure on it. They simply have this behavior in > their genetic repertoire and there has been no selective pressure to not > have it. If you mixed the two populations, you could conclude that this > behavior was insignificant because it is not seen in that many animals and > others do something different. But then chance shows up and a blizzard or > landslide or something wipes out population #1. So now a scientist looks > at the animals, the descendants of population #2, and they are all doing > the same behavior and the conclusion would be that there must have been a > selective pressure on that behavior and the scientist would look for the > reasons. But chance played just as much a role in the behavior being > present as did natural selection! > > We want there to be reasons for everything and hate to think that > something might simply not have a reason. And I have my doubts that a > research project that concludes that a behavior doesn't have an adaptive > significance would continue to get funded. Chance is an issue we simply > don't want to deal with. > > Janice Willard DVM, MS > From: IN%"PetherC@prose.dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 15-FEB-1999 16:38:47.82 To: IN%"S.Gragert@t-online.de" "'S.Gragert@t-online.de'", IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "Deborah McWilliams" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" Subj: RE: animals centre of gravity? Stephanie If you are interested in the amount of space a pig occupies (as seen from above) then take a look at the following papers, which explain how the area can be calculated, based on the weight of the pig (which you'd then multiply-up by the number of animals): JC Petherick (1982) Anim. Prod. 36: 497-500. JC Petherick (1983) in Farm Animal Housing and Welfare edited by SH Baxter, MR Baxter & JAD MacCormack. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers pp. 103-120. Recently I also heard from Nabil Brandl from Foulum, Denmark who has also been looking at allometric relationships in pigs. He has a home page: http://www.sh.dk/~nabil I have looked at the recommended loading densities for cattle - the aim being to pack them tightly, so that there is little free space, so that they support each other and are less likely to lose their footing. These recommendations correspond very closely to my theoretical ones, which are based on the equations given in the papers above. I hope this is of some help with your work. Carol Petherick TBC PO Box 5545 Central Qld MC Rockhampton Qld 4702 Australia > -----Original Message----- > From: S.Gragert@t-online.de [SMTP:S.Gragert@t-online.de] > Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 8:49 > To: Deborah McWilliams > Cc: applied-ethology > Subject: Re: animals centre of gravity? > > Hi Deborah, > > thanks for your reply > > > > When slaughter pigs are carried at a loading density of 0.5 m per > pig, > > > how much of this area does an individual animal fill seen from above? > > > > Seriously, I suggest taking a trip with a load with you in the > > back with them (providing for your safety, of course). Take a video > > camera with you. For example, if you had a "perch" up in the truck > > rafters (safety belted in, of course) where you had a "bird's eye > > view" and could record with the video. It would answer a lot of > > questions and create a lot more questions. Bring kleenex. > > Thank you but no. I already travelled with a load of pigs on a old > eastern german version of a transporter which had no suspension at all > and had difficulties to walk straight on for about half a year after > (and not because the experience was so depressing that I started > drinking), > I even almost bumped into my bedroom wall once. I hope I do not need to > take measurements myself but in case I had to I would put pigs into a > pen of known size and take fotos from above at the farm. > > > In case transport death occurs in pigs, when does it happen? In ten > > > short time (90 min) commercial transports there was only one transport > > > in which all pigs survived, but I was only once able to time the death > > > of a pig and that one died about 25 minutes after start. However one > of > > > the drivers told me that pigs that die always die at the beginning of > > > the journey. > > > > 1) At the beginning of one trip I made with a driver, the driver > > made a quick stop at a red light (I was in the truck cab with the > > driver). Every pig in the back slid forward with a whoomph! > > (nontechnical term) into the front of the transport. They were still > > in a pile when we got to the stockyards. > > That is what I am after, the maximum free space next to such a pile. > Only that I am interested in movements to the side. > When all animals are moved to one side the free space on the other side > is > number of animals in the compartement times x > (x is the room each animal theoretically has depentend on loading > density > minus the part the animals body really covers) > When I know x and how much the weight of the animals in relation > to the weight of the vehicle is I hope to calculate the possible > dislocation of the vehicles centre of gravity during cornering. I hope > to > find values that will wake up the people who do not care if animals are > thrown > around in transporters. But when the stability of the lorry itself was > at risk, > perhaps experts in loading safety and animal protectors could join their > forces > against the powerful lobby of the transport industry. > > > 2) Fasting animals before transport may make them more susceptible to > > stress-related injuries and death. > > I would be interested in some references for that. All the literature I > know > states exactly the opposite. > > Best wishes > > Stephanie Gragert > > ------------------------------- > Stephanie Gragert > Kochstr. 59 > 04275 Leipzig > Germany > Tel/Fax 0049 341 3304368 > From: IN%"chris.gotman@sympatico.ca" 15-FEB-1999 18:30:25.25 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Controlled by my genes Dear Gwyneth Verkerk et al, Consider as well that it is in the best interest of our genes that we grow old and die. The old must make room so that the new varieties can live and breed. In a world inhabited by immortals, speciation would cease, biological diversity would stagnate, and the biosphere would be more fragile, at greater risk from vagrancies in the abiotic environment. sincerely, Chris Gotman Quebec, Canada From: IN%"GPQUINLAN@aol.com" 16-FEB-1999 01:07:51.82 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: animal welfare Dear group, I hope it is ok to share this with the group. We talk about animal welfare! I have spent many years trying to educate the public, please bear with me and look at this site. Then lets see what can be done to open the minds of educators and the public alike. I'm not asking you to sign anything, just look and maybe make suggestions. click; Lyles TN Puppy Mill - The Horror of it All. From: IN%"DMills@dmu.ac.uk" "Daniel Mills" 16-FEB-1999 06:59:21.74 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Meeting on emotional disorders in companion animals April 7 1999 Please find details of the programme for the above meeting below Annual study day of the Companion Animal Behaviour Therapy Study Group Venue; The Council House Birmingham U.K. Date: April 7th 1999=20 Sponsors:=20 Novartis Animal Health UK Ltd=20 Sanofi Animal Health Ltd General enquiries Registration details/ payment: Daniel Mills BVSc MRCVS Pauline Appleby, De Montfort University Lincoln CABTSG Study Day Organiser School of Agriculture Hillside Caythorpe Campus Upper St. Caythorpe Defford Lincs Worcs NG32 3EP WR8 9AB UK UK Tel 44 (0)1400 275629 Tel 44 (0)1386 750534 Fax 44(0)1400 275686 Fax 44(0)1386 750743 e-mail dmills@dmu.ac.uk e-mail pauline@petbcent.demon.co.uk A day of animal emotion, mood and affect 09:00 Registration and coffee=20 09:45 The biology of emotions Gill Sheppard, Department of Animal Science, De Montfort University Lincoln 10:00 The effects of nutrition on mood and emotion Dr Peter Rogers, Dept of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol 10:45 Coffee interval 11:15 The validity of animal models of emotional disturbances in people Prof. Paul Willner, University of Swansea Wales 12:00 Anxiety is not a diagnosis - different forms of the clinical entity Prof. Sandra File, Neuroscience Research Centre, GKT School of Biomedical Sciences 12:45 Lunch 14:00 Recognising and treating companion animal emotional problems in practice Robin Walker, Centre Of Applied Pet Ethology, Worcester 14:45 Free papers 15:45 Tea break 16:00 A.G.M. Cost including buffet lunch and drinks sponsored by Novartis Animal Health Ltd Members =A330:00 Student members (including student nurses) =A310.00 - NB written = evidence required with application Non-members =A350.00 Please make cheques payable to CABTSG Daniel S. Mills BVSc MRCVS Senior Lecturer in Behavioural Studies & Animal Welfare School of Agriculture Faculty of Applied Sciences De Montfort University Lincoln Caythorpe Campus Caythorpe Lincs NG32 3EP UK Tel 01400 275629 Fax 01400 275686 e-mail dmills@dmu.ac.uk From: IN%"Hans.P.Kjaestad@veths.no" 16-FEB-1999 09:53:57.37 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: perpetuating genes Hello list members! Recently this list has contained some interesting messages concerning genes, reproduction and survival. John Kincaid posted this concerning feline social dynamics: "Hi Terry; don't know of spontaneousy aborting. What I do know is that as long as the she lion is nursing cubs she will not come into heat but in a few days after the new male kills the cubs she comes into heat and the new boy has a chance to perpetuate his genes." D.B. Cameron responded: " Behaviorists and other academics throw the above phrase around quite regularly; as if the "new boy" has some understanding of the long term effects of his last 50 orgasms (see a previous humerous post) much less genes and perpetuating them. I mean, get real, half or more of the high school studs in modern urban society have no knowledge of genes. So my question is: What is the origin of this seriously imprecise phrase so commonly used in a personal, non-objective manner, and what keeps it going?" I agree with D.B. Cameron that most people have a weak grasp of genetics and evolution, and that it may in fact be due to a lack of precision on the part of the educators. It is funny how the popular understanding of evolution seems to boil down to "an organism's wish to perpetuate its genes", because this concept has a couple of very weird implications: a) That every reproducing organism "knows" about genes and what they are for. b) That the organism (for some unexplainable reason) feels that it's urgent to "perpetuate the genes". Readers of the current mailing list of course see the fallacies here, but I have repeatedly heard these ideas from people who really ought to know better. I suspect that the concept partly originates in some serious misunderstanding/vulgarization of the writings of Richard Dawkins. In the later editions of "The selfish Gene", Dawkins himself does in fact recollect frustrating encounters with persons who take everything he says literally and otherwise don't have a clue to what he's talking about. One critic for instance argued that genes could not be "selfish" because, as everyone knows, genes do not have minds, ergo he considered Dawkins' ideas to be refuted. Because so many have their own little misunderstandings of the subject, one must address those misunderstandings in the classroom together with the correct version. I wish that everyone who are in a position to educate people about evolution would make an important distinction: Instead of talking about "genes", start talking about "a gene". Selection is exerted on single genes, and evolution and selection can only really be explained in terms of single gene selection. The genetic basis of behaviour may be complex, but as Richard Dawkins explained in "The selfish Gene", it is fair to refer to the genetic basis of a specific behaviour as "a gene". This does not mean that we know this "gene" to be a defined piece of DNA, it simply means that we consider it to be a set of genetic information that is likely to be inherited as a complete package. Now consider the example of "New Boy", the male lion who takes over a pride in which several females have cubs, then proceeds to kill all the cubs, whose mothers subsequently come into estrus and are impregnated by NB. Firstly, I'd actually point out to any students of mine that NB is a cub-killer primarily because his parents gave him the cub-killer gene, not because he wants to give the gene to his offspring. This emphasis is necessary because, by the 6th grade, most students have already adopted the popular, but imprecise notion of what natural selection is about. Secondly, it is important to stress that the term "perpetuation" only applies to the gene for the behaviour you are referring to. Generations of cub-killing has "perpetuated" the cub-killing gene, and ONLY that one. Hans Petter Kjaestad The Norwegian School of Veterinary Science hans.p.kjaestad@veths.no From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 16-FEB-1999 10:32:34.21 To: IN%"chris.gotman@sympatico.ca" "chris gotman" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Immortals - speculation On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, chris gotman wrote: > Consider as well that it is in the best interest of our genes that we > grow old and die. The old must make room so that the new varieties can > live and breed. In a world inhabited by immortals, speciation would > cease, biological diversity would stagnate, and the biosphere would be > more fragile, at greater risk from vagrancies in the abiotic > environment. Chris, What exactly one could mean by immortal isn't clear. If you just mean NO ORGANISM EVER DIES then you might be right. But you have to wonder how they would live if they couldn't inflict death on any other organism. There would be nothing to eat. I suppose we would end up with a world of plants and nectar sucking insects. Maybe it would be a big struggle for light and recycled nutrients from falling leaves, in a very crowded world. Then again with no death and decay it is hard to see what would sustain plant life indefinitely. I think this leads us into a paradox that if they couldn't die then they couldn't, ultimately, live either. I think a world of immortals that never die is unsustainable, even as a thought experiment. More interesting maybe to think in terms of a specific, limited kind of immortality. Consider a world inhabited by organisms that are immortal to the extent that they don't get old or wear out, or suffer from any kind of disease or degeneration that isn't the result of another organism's actions. Let's say they have an indefinite longevity and can continue to reproduce as long as they live. Suppose all life on earth became this way overnight. The only ways to die are 1. have a nasty accident (ie serious trauma - but maybe be they could be poisoned too?) 2. starve, 3. get eaten, (including from the inside by being parasitised or overwhelmingly infected by immortal bugs!) 4. get slain in a battle over resources (food, mates, living space or whatever). I don't think speciation ceases here. Gene replication now depends on avoiding the above while successfully inflicting 3 and 4 upon the competition. Maybe natural selection just becomes more focused to favour genes that code for TOUGH, NASTY and SMART, rather than competent and prolific. I'm guessing that indefinite potential longevity and indefinite reproductive periods for all organisms is going to benefit genes whose hosts can exploit it. I think we would see investment in fewer high quality offspring each time, very careful mate choice, biparental care and protection, extended periods of learning survival skills and greater sociality and intelligence as good traits in this new world. This is the direction that most speciation would take,the pressures on small, prolific, stupid organisms wouldn't have changed much. The race would still be to breed before you get eaten. But who will ever know. It isn't going to happen anyway. Jon ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Watts (___) ) ) University of Saskatchewan |o o|___________/ ( Dept of Herd Medicine O \#/ | ) and Theriogenology |bser| | Statistical | ( Western College of Vet. Med. |vati| | analysis | ) 52 Campus Drive |ons.| \___________/| *& Saskatoon ------ || || %$#@ S7N 1B4 / \ || || ^*@*~ Canada &^%%#$@ wattsjon@duke.usask.ca "The Holy Cow" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"cgaboury@total.net" 16-FEB-1999 13:10:07.95 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Immortals - speculation The ideas about gene perpetuation and immortality remind me of something I read in the introduction of my first Biology book in my first biology class. It was something to the effect of: "Ask a biologist to define the term 'alive' and he becomes very uncomfortable" It went on to explain that most entities fell into one of two opposite categories: 'alive' or 'not alive'. To be alive meant to require some kind of energy for maintaining this state of 'aliveness' and it also meant to be able to reproduce ones self. It also meant that going without an energy imput indefinately, would result in death. So where did viruses fit into the scheme of things? So how do we define living and non-living? Are viruses living? Are dorment eggs living? Are spores living? Are those nasty infectuous, replicating proteins living? (I don't know what they're called). Or is it simply a bad idea to dicotomise the world as such? Chantal :-) Jon Watts wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, chris gotman wrote: > > > Consider as well that it is in the best interest of our genes that we > > grow old and die. The old must make room so that the new varieties can > > live and breed. In a world inhabited by immortals, speciation would > > cease, biological diversity would stagnate, and the biosphere would be > > more fragile, at greater risk from vagrancies in the abiotic > > environment. > > Chris, > > What exactly one could mean by immortal isn't clear. If you just mean NO > ORGANISM EVER DIES then you might be right. But you have to wonder how > they would live if they couldn't inflict death on any other organism. > There would be nothing to eat. I suppose we would end up with a world of > plants and nectar sucking insects. Maybe it would be a big struggle for > light and recycled nutrients from falling leaves, in a very crowded world. > Then again with no death and decay it is hard to see what would sustain > plant life indefinitely. I think this leads us into a paradox that if they > couldn't die then they couldn't, ultimately, live either. I think a world > of immortals that never die is unsustainable, even as a thought > experiment. > > More interesting maybe to think in terms of a specific, limited kind of > immortality. Consider a world inhabited by organisms that are immortal to > the extent that they don't get old or wear out, or suffer from any kind of > disease or degeneration that isn't the result of another organism's > actions. Let's say they have an indefinite longevity and can continue to > reproduce as long as they live. Suppose all life on earth became this way > overnight. The only ways to die are 1. have a nasty accident (ie serious > trauma - but maybe be they could be poisoned too?) 2. starve, 3. get > eaten, (including from the inside by being parasitised or overwhelmingly > infected by immortal bugs!) 4. get slain in a battle over resources (food, > mates, living space or whatever). > > I don't think speciation ceases here. Gene replication now depends on > avoiding the above while successfully inflicting 3 and 4 upon the > competition. Maybe natural selection just becomes more focused to favour > genes that code for TOUGH, NASTY and SMART, rather than competent and > prolific. I'm guessing that indefinite potential longevity and indefinite > reproductive periods for all organisms is going to benefit genes whose > hosts can exploit it. I think we would see investment in fewer high > quality offspring each time, very careful mate choice, biparental care and > protection, extended periods of learning survival skills and greater > sociality and intelligence as good traits in this new world. This is the > direction that most speciation would take,the pressures on small, > prolific, stupid organisms wouldn't have changed much. The race would > still be to breed before you get eaten. > > But who will ever know. It isn't going to happen anyway. > > Jon > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jon Watts (___) ) ) > University of Saskatchewan |o o|___________/ ( > Dept of Herd Medicine O \#/ | ) > and Theriogenology |bser| | Statistical | ( > Western College of Vet. Med. |vati| | analysis | ) > 52 Campus Drive |ons.| \___________/| *& > Saskatoon ------ || || %$#@ > S7N 1B4 / \ || || ^*@*~ > Canada &^%%#$@ > wattsjon@duke.usask.ca "The Holy Cow" > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 16-FEB-1999 14:17:25.55 To: IN%"cgaboury@total.net" "Chantal Gaboury" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Living Vs Non-living On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Chantal Gaboury wrote: > So how do we define living and non-living? Are viruses living? Are > dorment eggs living? Are spores living? Are those nasty infectuous, > replicating proteins living? (I don't know what they're called). Or is > it simply a bad idea to dicotomise the world as such? > > Chantal :-) > Interesting questions. There is a whole twilight zone of quasi-living replicators out there! A world full of genetic algorithms, religions, scientific dogmas, computer viruses and superstitions which have no DNA basis to them and yet manage to propagate themselves through some medium or another. Be it a machine, a biological host or some social milieu. The distinction between living and non-living is becoming more blurry these days. Especially if you start thinking about artificial life. What seems to matter is some process allowing an entity to copy itself and some means to suck a little energy out of the environment to do it with. Something alive could be defined as whatever causes a little eddy in the entropic flow of the universe. To build some temporary order (of matter or information) at the price of increasing disorder all around. Perhaps it doesn't make a huge difference of principle whether we are talking about animals, plants, viruses, machines, programs or "memes". Jon;-) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Watts (___) ) ) University of Saskatchewan |o o|___________/ ( Dept of Herd Medicine O \#/ | ) and Theriogenology |bser| | Statistical | ( Western College of Vet. Med. |vati| | analysis | ) 52 Campus Drive |ons.| \___________/| *& Saskatoon ------ || || %$#@ S7N 1B4 / \ || || ^*@*~ Canada &^%%#$@ wattsjon@duke.usask.ca "The Holy Cow" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"donlay@iastate.edu" "Donald C Lay Jr." 16-FEB-1999 14:47:29.72 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: MS and PhD Programs in Companion Animals --Boundary_(ID_vvRtlSLW4S5zfe/hCebLqw) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hello Everyone! Several weeks ago, I called for information from people that offered a MS and(or) PhD program for Companion Animals. Several people also requested that I send this information to the list so that they too could benefit from this information. I have attached the file to this note, as well as pasting it below, in case you can not open the attachment. The following is the list of all responses that I recieved. THANK YOU all for responding to this request. I now have information to provide my students seeking careers along this path. As you will see their are several excellent web sites and addresses and(or) names of contacts that should be invaluable in your search. Don 1) See www.var.vet.uga.edu/behavior/ for information on the applied animal behavior program at UGA (Sharon Crowell-Davis) email: scrowell@calc.vet.uga.edu 2) Anthrozoology Inst. http://www.soton.ac.uk/~azi/azi/htm (University of Southhampton) email: d.wells@qub.ac.uk 3) Dog and horse behaviour Dr. Paul McGreevy, BVSc, PhD, MRCVS, Lecturer, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Room 206, Gunn Building (B19), Regimental Crescent, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia, email: paulm@vetsci.su.oz.au; http://www.vetsci.su.oz.au/paulm/ 4) College of Veterinary Medicine Animal Welfare Institute and Animal Behavior Clinic of Cornell University train MS and PhD students in companion animal behavior. Areas of interest: genetics of canine aggression, welfare of laboratory cats and dogs, welfare of horses. email: kah3@cornell.edu 5) Ontario Veterinary College, Pamela J. Reid, Ph.D., Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1. email: preid@ovcnet.uoguelph.ca 6) Take a look at: http://www.uwsp.edu/acad/psych/dog/misc.htm#career 7) MSc or PhD programs. Andrew Luescher DVM PhD Dipl ACVB, Director, Animal Behavior Clinic, Dept. Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Purdue University, 1248 Lynn Hall, W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1248. email: luescher@vet.purdue.edu 8) For details of courses in the UK you should contact the Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors who will send you a list of all courses that are available and contact details for each course. The address is apbc@petbcent.demon.co.uk 9) Recognition of emotional disturbance in the dog and work with horses as well. They offer a MSc by independent study, a sort of long distance program. They also offer an undergraduate degree in animal behaviour with a specialization in problem behaviour management in companion animals. Daniel Mills, Senior lecturer in behavioural studies and animal welfare, De Montfort University Lincoln, Caythorpe Campus, Caythorpe, Lincs NG32 3EP, UK. email:dmills@dmu.ac.uk 10) If you are a veternarian looking for residencies in Animal Behavior leading to board certification as a Veterinary Behaviorist. Contact Dr. Bonnie Beaver at Texas A&M for information. --Boundary_(ID_vvRtlSLW4S5zfe/hCebLqw) Content-type: application/msword; name="MSphdprog.doc"; x-mac-type="42494E41"; x-mac-creator="4D535744" Content-disposition: attachment; filename="MSphdprog.doc" Content-transfer-encoding: x-uuencode begin 600 MSphdprog.doc MT,\1X*&Q&N$`````````````````````/@`#`/[_"0`&```````````````! M````+P``````````$```,0````$```#^____`````"X```#_____________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M_______________________LI<$`5P`)!```"!*_````````$```````!``` M[`P```X`8FIB:MM_VW\````````````````````````)!!8`!QD``+D5`0"Y M%0$`WP@````````,``````````````````````````````#__P\````````` M``#__P\```````````#__P\``````````````````````%T``````&X$```` M````;@0``&X$````````;@0```````!N!````````&X$````````;@0``!0` M`````````````(($````````@@0```````""!````````(($```X````N@0` M``P```#&!```%````(($````````20T``!`!``#F!````````.8$```````` MY@0```````#F!````````.8$````````Y@0```````#F!````````.8$```` M````/`8```(````^!@```````#X&````````/@8``#H```!X!@``3`,``,0) M``!,`P``$`T``"0```!9#@``]`$``$T0``!F````-`T``!4````````````` M````````````;@0```````#F!`````````````````````````````#F!``` M`````.8$````````Y@0```````#F!````````#0-````````Y@0```````!N M!````````&X$````````Y@0``````````````````.8$````````Y@0````` M``#F!````````.8$````````Y@0```````#F!````````&X$````````Y@0` M``````!N!````````.8$````````/`8````````````````````````````` M@@0```````""!````````&X$````````;@0```````!N!````````&X$```` M````Y@0````````\!@```````.8$``!6`0``Y@0``````````````````#P& M````````;@0```````!N!``````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````````````````````````````/`8```````#F!``` M`````-H$```,````0%@^:>Q9O@&"!````````(($````````Y@0````````\ M!@`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````,2D)4V5E('=W=RYV87(N=F5T+G5G82YE9'4O8F5H879I;W(O(&9O M2P@0E938RP@4&A$+"!-4D-64RP@3&5C='5R97(L M($1E<&%R=&UE;G0@;V8@06YI;6%L(%-C:65N8V4L($9A8W5L='D@;V8@5F5T M97)I;F%R>2!38VEE;F-E+"!2;V]M(#(P-BP@1W5N;B!"=6EL9&EN9R`H0C$Y M*2P@4F5G:6UE;G1A;"!#2!O9B!3>61N97DL M($Y35R`R,#`V+"!!=7-T6]U('-H;W5L9"!C;VYT86-T('1H92!!6]U(&$@;&ES="!O9B!A;&P@8V]U2!O9F9E2!I;F1E<&5N9&5N="!S='5D>2P@82!S;W)T(&]F(&QO;F<@9&ES M=&%N8V4@<')O9W)A;2X@(%1H97D@86QS;R!O9F9E6]U(&%R92!A('9E=&5R;F%R:6%N M(&QO;VMI;F<@9F]R(')E$` M_0#]`/T`_0`````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````````#0-J`````$-*&`!5"`$/`@B!`VH`````!@@! M50@!!P((@4-*&``0`@B!`VH`````0TH8`%4(`0`$0TH8``\`!```I@0``*<$ M```8!0``&04``#\&``!`!@``:`<``&D'```N"```+P@``'8(``!W"```6@D` M`%L)``!)"@``2@H``"`,```A#```WPP``.$,``#B#```XPP``.0,``#F#``` MYPP``.D,``#R````````````````ZP```````````````/(````````````` M``#K````````````````\@```````````````.L```````````````#R```` M````````````ZP```````````````/(```````````````#K```````````` M````\@```````````````.L```````````````#R````````````````ZP`` M`````````````/(```````````````#K````````````````\@`````````` M`````.L```````````````#R````````````````Z0```````````````.D` M``````````````#D````````````````Z0```````````````.D````````` M``````#I````````````````Z0``````````````````````````````!``` M$F3L_P````$```<``"HD`0W&!0`!,/T```P``"HD`0^$T`(1A##]#<8(``(P M_0``````&@`$``"F!```IP0``!@%```9!0``/P8``$`&``!H!P``:0<``"X( M```O"```=@@``'<(``!:"0``6PD``$D*``!*"@``(`P``"$,``#?#```X0P` M`.(,``#C#```Y`P``.8,``#G#```Z0P``.H,``#K#```[`P````````````` M``````````````#^_O[^_O[^_OX````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````"`0$=Z0P``.H,``#K#```[`P``/T````` M``````````#]````````````````\``````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M``````````````P``"HD`0^$T`(1A##]#<8(``(P_0```````0````,%`1$P M`1(P`!Q0`0`?L-`O(+#@/2&PH`4BL*`%(Y"@!220H`4EL```%["@!1BPH`4" MTM0!``$````!@````0```````P`!`````8````$``````````0````&````! M```````$``$````!@````0````````$!`````8````$```````0!`0````&` M```!```````"``$````!@````0``````!``!`````8````$```````(!`0@` M``&````!`-`"````````+@`N`"X`+@`H`"D`*``I`"D`*0`H`"D`*``I```` M`````````````````````````````````````````````(M%]%]DHP````!> M6XOE7<.+SNB%^?__QD7\`.O2C4WLZ9C0"0"X^.AY`.DZP!,`C4WPZ8;0"0"X M$TQA`.@NP!,`@^P(4U97B_&-3?`SV^APT`D`C47PB\Y0B5W\:.H#``#HQ=H) M`/]U\(N&H````%"+./]7/(/$"(7`=$2-3>SH/]`)`,9%_`%H-.E^`.B,```` M4(U-[&@B0V@D`:A"+SE/_=>SH"=,)`(A=_.@"````ZSB-3>SI_<\) M`/^VJ````/]U\(N^I````.AKOQ,`@\0(BQ^+SX/X`1O`]]A0_W7P_U,0B\[H M%@(``,=%_/_____H&E0```!$```````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````````````````````````````````#`!P:&]E;FEX M``$``````&@)A@`SVSE8^'5>C47\B5W\4&B,;H(`Z*@""@"#Q`@Y7?QT%(M% M_#@8=`U0N6@)A@#H+L\)`.L?Z#8```!0N6@)A@#H',\)`&B`;H(`N6@)A@#H M!\\)`(-]_`!T#/]U_/\5'*&&`(/$!*%H"88`6XOE7@`UX"88``;ET"88` MZ&K."0!H[TUA`.CVOA,`@\0$H70)A@"#>/@`=6J-1"0$:`0!``!0Z#?."0#_ M<`C_%020A@"%P'1.C40D!+]T"88`4(O/Z!/."0!J7(O/Z)#5"0"#^/]T)6H` MB\]0Z,/5"0"A=`F&`(O/4.CNS0D`:*QN@@"+S^C%#QR2U MZ?6PMNM#&@@H)<.79T=`F8F@W)8'\9%WR!RCXV8=5W1_&\8(#0XK9T(OXA9> MPCJK^Z,?GWKC.D!+.`+D344,P&]T00A:_]%.%KP+"B[6C>7Z?^#E2E8+H!ZD MF!\G;`QQ"5\82BY?@#Y`8>VK(V5YHZS0\24&!;K\-`<.XN2NB@`_C,I-0[1' MP:3GX`"*M$Q7%3H>)N]SA]!QD!ZA,PD]\,*W5(#!/> M<#QN4,=WL._7(3=JZRM"`9E7@GW]Q12BX-C(5BASZ-J%S?8/$K=#[_\F35[) M&[(\+(E(:'2U[2RC4N]F`CDO!P?Z[\#$MD%(%W:&/%*F3/FM\IOK@23-6*-8 MU]2U7Y-TP[^SDD[X=[IHUX/#TCY>>>5Z:/]W2G#X#A!>1Z`:PF8F6W,BG=)+ M]2[QR$TG]*83&+1`V.F"BC#R*M0*/Y.A"3S'RLYOW\P5B/,BP'#N`P$@.XW> M+\3W9HI;2N^E^.Y",1Z[(#JE_34(4@;01"UTBX^SD?LF:@M;<'^)D/1+DE=) MJ$S4C`+81../&,O,6&K(_![P.#R]'8WN4,;-UOP'A5U4.'OWF)*SJ&0%G>_* M2[BN)3Q,$M*KVP9!Z4$'L'GD^T4FY\3:VNA[9HP.MM3`#%SHZ]\A` M.X?QU+HP1W"D`5]FL=_M988B>V@>XN40:Q17PK)&QF!HR_Q>]4:_+PSY*BQ& MX%7:V8!4$-COQ"FR-D\2P*`,J59_!4V_`CP9Z/]7"XOTUCS:^N;'AB-2PA*6 M[^!-\4UQ-:\!R3(")1C]T7E1O]<=9$W?Q[B=ZM?*,S:\F0L^DX1Q+3E"]USKM@@[GFG%)?&K??VVC[LW_\ MM+"C"Q/W8-4]B\>50\Y+00-.NG*QM;,.&JT1;][_!>P]?S[VOO_9V.O\[V`O M.(*]JY1EA#WU7D_&BIC++.1PWL'Z#!Q6UR[)6!%@.@C$]F)I;1JYP25=N$8\C=DL1IL?C7V,F`WKI0"?=<<#D#W*YX55U&'FR&,0V_`"?]`<'`KTEWLPCFY1A9--N^C/&(:G@=.FL0?G+;E@1;XH\.:8,@\EOH0+0`[K;X,`B>?3 M:MM0H/O99[,%('0W#8%8^';NDB]-V!GD05/4?ED`%6*\;Q3,!T-HX_'V&K1` MPLN\".L6.A6+1-7O69BSKELY]RS\]V(]78<%7Y_])^7,Q\^N">@P)A'ML3_1 M^$5ISUE#!U^8<-B$;TVCM-\E]?!K)-VV[O=K3#NG_6OPJ!UOX)PS:$691F_:TU@0^0F$9CD815^^111M"G-G6C33D*\EHC)0UBDM3#4=)< M\MA3F_19!^JW%E0O<_Q>&O*T?HC'Q-ZMJXK[U.8/9[TQ9TI7&;]0.LVW#HSR MNJZ@XR>/=*YB4S!1`1(\^K.'I$R%]-<*X\CT7$5KK?+VOK\XE%?V]3EF#2J_ M@2S*9&D?=[E/ZN;4U^ET1>M?$1B0N%3Q/0VI6TB;@YT]K#1YA1U.8<!0U;+]CJ'G?)MID`DZUW MSB^%'>_:]W<)V.&CS,@E+YY+[>473Y\\KL`Z/S!KYM0)1?:Z>;,O+"\M=EQS MY64773!)<-545U;X/+SEJCF7S)@ROM"V8&Z5O\SKYJZ^XM+/39M8XKS(=9EP MY:1K+OB<\]*2*R9>/>U"Q^SB>:5UY7ZNRCW7NZ!LIGU646#"_*DS;)<4SAE_ MU93IUHL++A]7.[G"4LE7>VI\9OTF'&8["(_9A@F3V3;":;7:Z#_SI]A3.,G" MV::6.+P%$\<7V2>[!.>4"6ZK>Y*-'S_%6C31PTT0O(53';YQQ:4NB_T"4J9! MG7:Z>!=?4%CD+G(7EP@>P3-N_`3O!&_IQ$F^2;[)4Z:632TKGW:!I80KMMJ$ M(MY>Z'0["BPNB^#B2FS%5G@M*G#8>1 MO:30XBP6K'R)L\C.%;ALQ6Z+H]!>S+D$&U_BMD`5!44.2XFKJ!#:!Q5WD`CCM)0X;S]D%B[/06LP7<)#=92NQN3FKJ[#(R3OL0K&E MI*"D"%)<`*]%*+07\$[.9BTJ+';Q0H';X;1;2HIXM\L*"((V"@HYAQT:$0IL M3MY2;.=*`"N%T#>7N\#AM!:76(KL?$&)`,VZ[2X+!\T6.3F[#;X*A44E5I?3 MPA=S1;82`7[M@%]'(92R%+D`OX4E=H?;)O!.*U=4#*5+"@5HPP$M%17S5J[0 M50``EMCL[F+HDU,HLA860/\L`!MBV.[B`-HBZ(X-D&HM<)?8H-?%@MW!VZPE M+JZ0+X;QM-@AC^"N%'1^M$7:46EHPPL36)ZSPVRCI4[N>P%*M?PWH7:53(0WS5,#OUB>F MYW)0=7]=WE4Z'Q[$%P.'A1T_.P#5J@ML6Q_'"N&]#]ZO[7KB$!9]'"N0/O5U M/:%AR3>D[NJ%=1BB2[@?#ZCQ!L%(H!O-V&[T>^M!&M'H*<_=P4K=3 M77"3L./1Q_#+@OO@R_?,/+L>IPX^=$ME>\MFY;?[LO;V/UB['F^%5'RST5L; MO;V1;7_?"N_8_N.;(*GKD['")9`_;OPP]8'L9==#^)S_4C1]ZGN>L`#(G2KC)^[ MW![(4=_Z)[JPD<3*%]&5`!DF"I?='S\;T$&T#!S>REVYM?>GKDO^]7`68%?= MGU[;M:JX6_K4U:K!\/.M_X9'WEK[6;KXTN#QGUW?2:6-!U"]5V_]+=1WP*AO ML)[J&^);M0;I'-2'`F)3=YC\9$&P`O;5YE:YVL#)'HMEJT7= M79["WT*!+E]K/W'?H_]IXV9GKO[,SO!F9\S&[QO5N/!W-'Z8I`Y@U![3Y\($ MX-?`A_>=MBN_:]C*67_JFO'N);\\/.0'**YJ[%H,4.BNUJ.@M$J?UK>^04B= M-9R/U!R_7-H8F5X_TW]AOHN^EPQJ**($;D8JJ_D>IR7=W=/@LHANZ8PMR8)4 M9+\(SV(Q[R+D->5.IN8^9`()5?07(,26>LZQQ0J*6(53`] M8<\-[@@?1ZIV_"NY+I[P:R2I4[F:S6/K5:$V( MKG&*$^3O:J`)E1:AP\-VNS&`0Z7"HR%\ZC2>"B0G2:?+DN.ETU.2Q?U9U.@6 M^SV\$=D,9$\?=.>/5>QL]0WF=>ZAJ&"R*^G"ERFB/W`45$U?[2J_M\5G7-4# MZZBTQ:8+=FW1?$A?IRDEBDOX"=0M.^K MS]D\;>]9IWX0.)KZ(RJ4TFNEU,(\\^J=M=;YGVR81OV!WC3'9!ZDPU`N`HO' MNLQ?:3_'FO_E>>WE;+K,@"M>\T(6%IY=Z%AII8!L%;B;@/9WBHLN(^M.\HCL MJQ@^)RN7ILX^AGCT2F`"HD`0W&!0`!D"0"````)@`B``$``@`F````!P!#`&$`<`!T`&D` M;P!N`````@`?``0`0TH8`#(`_D_R_P$",@```!$`7P!%`'$`=0!A`'0`:0!O M`&X`(`!#`&$`<`!T`&D`;P!N````````````[`@```0``!@`````_____P`` M```#`````P````,````%````"`````L````+````"P````L````+````"P`` M``L````.``````0``.P,```(``````0``.D,``#L#```"0````L`````!``` M[`P```H```#__P8````.`$$`;@!I`&T`80!L`"``4P!C`&D`90!N`&,`90`L M`$,`.@!<`%<`20!.`$0`3P!7`%,`7`!4`$4`30!0`%P`00!U`'0`;P!2`&4` M8P!O`'8`90!R`'D`(`!S`&$`=@!E`"``;P!F`"``00!$`$0`+@!A`',`9``. M`$$`;@!I`&T`80!L`"``4P!C`&D`90!N`&,`90`F`$,`.@!<`$T`>0`@`$0` M;P!C`'4`;0!E`&X`=`!S`%P`0P!/`%(`4@!3`%``3P!.`%P`30!3`'``:`!D M`'``<@!O`&<`+@!D`&\`8P`.`$$`;@!I`&T`80!L`"``4P!C`&D`90!N`&,` M90`F`$,`.@!<`$T`>0`@`$0`;P!C`'4`;0!E`&X`=`!S`%P`0P!/`%(`4@!3 M`%``3P!.`%P`30!3`'``:`!D`'``<@!O`&<`+@!D`&\`8P#_0&MH,C,U-FQJ M-&MN`%Q<04Y37U-%4E9%4C%<:V@R,S4V;&HT:VX`4%-#4DE05`!K:#(S-39L M:C1K;@!K:#(S-39L:C1K;@`````````````````````````````$`P24`+@" M'W<```$``0#J"F\(9``!``<`6`(!``$`6`(#```````````````````````` M``````````````````````````@```#`$@``R!D```$``````````0````(` M````````````````````````*Y\OT4`7#!B'+P(``0`!```````!```````" M``(``0!2`P``P@$``````````&0`````````__\``/__``#__P``__\!`/__ M``#__P``__\``/__`0#__P$`__\!`/__`0#__P$`__\``/__``#__P``__\` M`/__`0#__P`````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M``````````````````````````#__T-U"0")1>R#Q`3&1?P!B_BX`````(7_=`A6B\_H MP`,``#/)B$W\7XF&E````(F.L````,=%_/____^+QHM-]&2)#0````!>6XOE M7<(8`/]U[.C"HOG_P[B0[WD`Z5J.$P"+3?#I%.CY_U:+\>@6````]D0D"`%T M"5;H6-$P"+3?#IG^?Y_XM$)`2)@;````#"!`#IF:()`%6+[(/L#%-6C9FD```` M5XOQZ&NB"0"+^(U-](U%^%!14XU%_%"-CJ@```!1_[:P````Z`[V[O^#Q!B+ M3?2+5?B+1?R)CIP```")EJ````"%P'0,@_@!=!.#^`+^_P``!``"```````` M```````````````!````X(6?\OE/:!"KD0@`*R>SV3````!D`0``$`````$` M``"(`````@```)`````#````G`````0```"H````!0```,`````'````S``` M``@```#@````"0```/@````2````!`$```H````@`0``#````"P!```-```` M.`$```X```!$`0``#P```$P!```0````5`$``!,```!<`0```@```.0$```> M`````P```#$I```>`````0`````I```>````#P```$%N:6UA;"!38VEE;F-E M```>`````0````!N:6T>````"P```$YOQ9O@$# M`````0````,```!(`0```P```%`'```#``````````A<%QO=B=@LL>&=]?C+ MVKD&O\R=C^&(6C"W_9W@\-1%]L>XR,9&*-X9\K,#M%C/)<'XQW'2`QL(=FR` M)L(>DT'TD*2*NKPX26TB4UC?ZW>A[0V_R4_T;V-AM9WXNG88@HVD.Y2\FU#V M7#P&3;0GIR&0[V*:1D<-Z6#*6Q`N#6TUK.IQ4P+,BN#P'PMW8%:9XC<2?(Z^0)L[$I[4 MQ#ID\?J@C"/0?\3%/&3"S^(Z#\)Z+(?=P&>,B$S,<;$5'T7Y.63AA7=,@GZG MD.Z$>H83J"09\S%K,;9JLGE/B@\1A]":(XXOZ^I#4))0SQG26)B*R$4XJ)GG M0D.T+C`5Q48GGY$W[T-:'CU;;3J)]$8NO[^^2><-M.L&(W<'!#^&(IJ=![>1 M[68P!D3@HXH M&39M90VLJMD`>.PB*SB2Z(#PZI$^I+"!W+6[R MA]VG(B*.K>@1E-4$9WBBFAFAI1-!5!^)NCLO]_175C2E2[ ML!NGQ_8__[O8QE)L)\2)%-M34.5'O8JD:V2T?#\;S'DZ90CR%?:F1MV]]&O; M$ZK]-H2J9JWIX;JJJ^/%-CJ1UB@),%K]-`R/3SS*7LR;2XI:PO.+"^O41YDY MA:?LK+*D&!U9[;A63X<4&\O0P,>G'YH'1X*`&UY@J0MD^-1*&&-F6LN&&G=TU-6V\_JB1:[Y3N]'O6-9:EIVCR< MPI@GS,&-N>4QU@;,KYKM1@APF&",8$IC-&KKBLG4U\3FI*)`!BG3?%*/H`4- M;NEM0D8(SAV@(=GP.8)5''_PE0:$1>'%5]HEXU: M4X'6Y$@^/\032L6S?@*6=C((Z,+-3#8B4Q)#*GIEYMLQ0K('38-\)@`*LMQ> M5US0VHQB+2/41<1G!K[OX7PA.":T#\+K2HP8+JB"-)`(0T=31<0F`<&XR9Z. MK:U-DUHLQC%=V.N+KRA3,'FIR^_RUS)\8Y?J-O"RPR^$6=>:!(^Z&D]F6ZP& M<6C`['?QH%K^0O$1\-[C;I8 MY46&L11!B:Q!Q3L"P\.U:IU+;?V6IB%^1>U`N':`06@11*K7;RC&SOC[-K*) MN^*CJCU`[4+G0KJ!)\I4;B]U'I]'M+/.4YS@]H$:*L()S4?(\]B!?%X5;6AB M']EV;2XNE#0\7-$RQ&_'_H#A$@#UV@:+MD'P-Z'\J^HHSE M8GP?46J1E_P&Q8ERVDA7G?^IM,U3/HWSW13KUGM6Q*&9&GC,'TP! MYU:_CQ[4B`0KYDM/%\#NR461P_/?(\_*H_HOG2KB5)(JHK].Y[<:$M$W.^`1G?SK_Q9Y-I!4GT\)B;EB"J)$NG^JC M#2'[*5KV4)4Y^T.7\8U@GHOJD&=5J49=<8'TM!UV4Q"5"(\W)1^[$XCG_0P0 MVZ^UD-80<<.];,"F<*4P>PKWI@9QU>-+JH+U]:N>$*O6/R'6KU_G7B4N<:^J M;USSZ*J&);7N!:ZRNYL6_,H_L9_&_G!WR9^SO8D/\UZBNLKG^+G M09NY,KR9G]\\S<]%6OBQ4"L_:9&X$B[$-S3?U;FT!)UVWHY^T7+S`!XP3WR5 M'9TRF.;7FYN:>C(-_*25 M5@*()6C>C6!'Z22<5I8'E_^Y-]-HPTG\KX)LH96CLM2"C,`N.7@>VBQ>SP@U MDS2AF5)SW"BB0;P)=H7[SA->P4!R/\";52?6@(4EW"SXU$]&45%S=J,=J#VNT"&)9B#DV8/"HM]^"!OI(J7Y@+#-6M;6107[5'&5N M.=K%U*GO+H5A-;^XN+U+-HJ-2L,+T$!@4GJ(U+I(U:7=Q\"BXQRSR MC+HU'I=A;@J]C39R-(&/]8#0`4%+7(J1CK36(5Y,5D\[&>7B@FE(>,1@+W"K MV/;L-Y8S*758V"PG;+6T7EHLFELON8)Y,_%'D1AOO90=^ZNNI)O!)I&`46E& M4(GE@EL]6)@PVJ+*.T^(;6AI053L=.52JN=(73-<:GV`\[,%R[QJ_8T,@AU6 MVZ+#C"EKEX%5J5O]SJ!H?XZ1/8.G5S@]<$,JZ&^52$1))(;R6P?0P+C](/P- M1;$.PM6"'#Z$-]]"5--PN)<"(%9M#T._E<.H;PR'#]#L-Z<.,NE_ZRT\1Y$) M\]BOXO'150R`R`XC'=/4W]X`8^DOJ'!+<7Y(Y8:;@-QP4Y%5XR[.JC&+LVHL M#5W"S1GSKNI[F"F<'0%!_?Y#FM;W`/O-B>*LR+@QXQ\1Z)'?#UA@IB_DRXU7 M_3G)82;5@^\.(:@)OO#<``N/K>THZ=>_@+*(BT/:.?S>U/1JAVS&=T.V82T6,:I;`]RD!L13C MPA/4V"U7K7>Q?-AW%9F"5@(I+V!/$DNU1]?<^E<9!PD4B\._6(1=YNFZ0-U@ M@2(PW`W+L3K-#;UGZ4!XZ8#[VE+$-22(5/"V+0;=E"3)45/.K`^)[EYV#M0Q MZY:UNOH)O4_:\1E"YF'$..3\2-7MY0T$AZ M);ZX>=5/Z;@)!XAQS(DJZ3+S+H&V-=$YY(WA9\QDH_P96AW6#KA86\JSK"S) M/9^94H:B:'>YO7O.F*@.4%+(ZGF&()M#4?SR^<^D9#8AY,2O7GM]+'N<1(V5 M65U^B38\HR`;TB8!,CK3Y?\KBQ`I7F+Y\/)?38-I4-*IJ69@>Y\SI=+[]?L- M`@/:Q_:/.E4#'6H3SYVM[2/2!9WA2"EUB[3@>?6'?FR??K8'FD:DY@2R%50# M^HNX+>LG0ZF1@]_VL+<1H2NXD38+\XR)!N$;/#2=5YK/-SX8&(=0KDJ-8(JZ MU&X7PLL=T"G_^"O:-.1OJ4O>4)QGIFX#I7A@7K603D+U@&E$)7V$QK[0JBRUAI_'E\,2=LP) MD?`>['QF3,BUJ"[%)M?G_RR98*H]@]X+Z7YZAWF=C;/;]=M(,\/>2N'^E+J% M\1&7VZ?6P'XL';QP4$TPH[1$=?1>KSJTWVVC@4_JW(2Q?4$@`#4S#FOFM@54 M,W,KHF.TBR<3ZTN2SB?!"`:)9+2PZ6P^CO?P6M@N+B$>'8_68-=^APNQNA!E M/75$'/(A2]OT*9I+Q#U,3LUX2W3?2"7(6(.1AQ"J6!6DF@F;=?/Z&CTA6]3-FI)8!$+Z=@&ODZS+SHB*MS]$)UL[,8#EMCP MW4OH9&/W(CK9V(V'02Z]IS\TG]I3U[8P!AR8*%QJ'AJ-.,\0/W&_;%2 M"V4PP-%/`7?<,`O_FMW-#F3[V,[<1WOTWW;HUOG_C/5V10L6^5L2PQ;;:.L\ MQG=&@=H3/G`S4WS@LIC9Z%HV$*L%'W-^XV;WN!G'A?ST:'2<1C\W@[IX(;=U M*Z#M[P!I8J2_X4UU!SR+C2`]0C(7`LM%`E--W[)#-WAD4%Y(+_4(N=B#9.Z5 MJX5H-:'^^?=%&UOD!?8`IW0;S?*(@I[TM,6@Q(/C0AH6,S@RM0Y`_E+;'Z#D MR[24#"2!W%B/G$Z*>'3(,.]&B0_/-.\C98+H8JJ$=95X*FAK6X!,#RN)N!>/ M.RM7T25:G%````!@```%1I=&QE``,````!````````F``` M``,`````````(`````$````V`````@```#X````!`````@````H```!?4$E$ M7T=5240``@```.0$``!!````3@```'L`.`!"`#0`,`!"`#4`,@`Q`"T`0P`U M`#@`1``M`#$`,0!$`#(`+0!"`#@`.`!!`"T`-``T`#0`-0`U`#,`-0`T`#`` M,``P`#``?0````````#//H':ULV.!5%OJTS9CMW_[7(M:-`^@,06!O_FAKU@ M.W^?O8STEBF"%LOG^TK-Y)D7_ZHE!Z2:U?Q]A^7DA25&MEZH-OT5)8%JVBH-)3=I`6E"I4%]HF5)6@Z7U6M(I- M'%I5">F#8V9F').47`AG`3>#XJC*[>SK%?:U@[X@]=&[<<&!E?1?B$M^-WG7 MF7?_*_,)OZ[4^6"!$E][8H9I>>&:$RKM11!2T=0+^_CEQQ%"[7A*=5(#GA%1O0L>0_#'J6E?7%%6J3W:M^VZ@[0:*#^03U331X5]Z> M\#ZT=2^T^MMO83GAQWZX]3<\7YJ^?&+0/+VF5*3C)'\&X_N81(#"RR=BV8_2 MB?0CX=^$V%"SSZ3RRTL@4Q!#$4S-N]N9P)L&>X%(M744U$/JVI0MKR=UPN%0 M^OK)BY5*74RE+DTKM.Q\1UZD*PE8]HHA>P$+ M,Q=@"Q_!!^#IMW_S(%E&7*;NKJ:MZ`(\#0@O>*33J,L\\@)!]MIEKR5:38-# MSF2DHQR&W>O_VWNH4"*Y(E6+I'Y0K>F"`[."8T2L9^Q,5>3UB4,YYRJ*.O]T M$>2?VFNL\"O_#DOL?8C>*>\B/[8F.U?'F\D<&+9]P?Y$W3)#@^\%T?:.24OV M%!L6-A2HJ5V!M:EU"2/=HV]C,EJQ^7_6P>NFDNOJR21%5TX<8N^,([38C0P@ MENDP@WE>W3U6Z4%L6@@2>$+=#*OY,GVHV+EVMCB\5`@WVZ-.DM2PA3EL@RMJ MH@8X-;2Q)9K%*&.(@@CY'KGB&!6*_\E>LR.8$^H]<>IU*5-07^Q!^O5#;Y(E M20F1=&;SR&./7?6*&P-_F!HXD^6`ARQ$S&(7,B]C\+I%$%I-"1W,M^U:7(S0 M486RQTIG?`?E6LM5R?@PF?/IR5#I"*^!M-CZZ+(G[%KHI-A%5<%+;V<5O1[G M2,&VJ]IBV[7`"N*+-S>"1BQ*)1JO4-EE)_)3P`PF(#H%6;A0*?F]VCC=DWKL MK#CLMI?"G==O)!3L>H\24K$\\=^<5:M7!->)AEGUJU94K5^Y"BO9T\#.1^:L M?WS%FB<,A@7!Q[^-=YB/ZJQ''UW5T+#$5;]^]9IU%/YVP];YQ8)M9T2*W]YB M%>ND>!$:?=X4NU.*W]F2+=9(\8EB:6R\%+]'K)#B%6*Q%)\AWB+%[Q7'2?'[ MQ"(IOD2\28IO%H?]MNB>".+XF&(CF=+0#BN/=;?`UAH+FP30[_$$'H8K4[9! M7]Z:=4^W.'Q&D2C,R`[FPBY)B6\UM'4%SR+-PHUH?FC8FN4BO-L=1M$*`5K+ M<>_P62P#HNE.K,$(U0SM578!1DJRP5AW#983K\AYEQR,>^OH=%@_W,"34JGY MO"F8,ST8WTN@&QEE%Y)'&SV\XI7%,#O-MJ!BKC#\P/`ZEU8O^.T-Y.SI8+C1 ML&&)C0K/'DZ/"MDCN_[(SLQ<4_K5/E2_IW8NGM=I8:>0"FD=N^&#!IG!2SQ%'LPJIND'5B/;@?&CWUHODJ#:^%;U2=I#1G<,+0C]9+11Z&.+D;N MM1Q1P^7U$)1*?K$>^$;<[/`3FUS]%6?L/Q!'B2"K$Z,YL7'4#V(X;(57/8QX M@YN+K0;1A@@7V.)#O.IJO,M0J)Y"0R)][T_J;KOJN5_3]/,T;#^BDH`=HEA+ MB]<*,F,#<;_Q`3PU&<`SIU22,W$:,OL8Y:QPC>#R]L"._+7UI`/&]\*^R8OD MA>5>=?H#S'!,B<:&^70]:%S+W]Z1.@5@KO`H)%Q7$IXE2)')BUQ8[#JFI2#< MGB1@#_/=5C(K4?,2-"O50LPD=5G2\D?G:^AL$;J70HW0&@5O>-YDG3:*+!MC M\\)K)^-4%O98%K%;,*EC>"43(I2=@G8LO&!.N!V/U>IL3 M>'@D6`6Y:F+,JM\5GZ#V*\&!B-/\O!FN.O7,/)*C;TPR$E)@0C>_N M@HXBE!M%2X9Q5NMT0S#.^H^@_AF]`6!*0]&H_1W1N'2AUPO]?E3JOE#JU4//`K-FE=XMV=G&7F+7[.\R[M=:>'IU. M>6$E?$Y$0?147`D.P658W0G2"]EY7W-V0"ECO#%=RB`)19DTD0@UZ]#``9?S MHQCT<[:8V].[=6^*F$*R1LH;;_`WW#XU1V/'I"^Q\Q*<`J6N^UVIDJJMK9W4 MKW-]W/A7SH3N.T^0%UA"%5@'P5'A!59E$C:6UF#QSV]`_+RCT&XQJU(%DJW5 MU.U"T]\J:WC!2'8-J1?W5,\P*//L(.S"M@]N*U4%\!=DB:I"^%;O(-^B.7@* MPCMAV05^Z)^<[)C)%VX,4AG`896;JCX;9W1EN]&DH6\A*0RM2B7!LVO'9LK. M,^'JD>RJGPZ3!?RA+)@C.\\K=27*K'+9$S?M5VK/F)SG3<[^\!)+D3N=OY&F M>#J>)F5KO]15%,W"[A&ML2#3A.F@7&-%Y>O"`E-$J8WC;X>\L!"&MEQCQ^QX M+2[9)R@U%E.4:\@Q4TJ--?&;9TVI*4B_5:*5PDT'W:3)JGJ.MJ$ML`6LGE2 MX,N9>BF3[UM![NE*++M6KCDJ]JGQ"Q3Q:#SY]267R2&TQ/4-8Y"N13YU\X74 M'O%WP]<,OS\8KC7\QB:&GY<&TQ$,&DX,/[8SAJTC`M_5)P:?)S5\<#Z&]7C5 M[U]F:LS@3"\[5BYL8T,W>">%\*FU$((NL878Z-6-TZU[L"4&@>19"22/W\0A MHDPJ)20.N/4X\:L&LV!S]S_()->M#QL"D3#N^RFSAD,(T`?4C]%ZO^0M=@*9%9O08GP<,"V!\583(%*"SV M,GFME$F+*+EAC*P+D=UT<"6=2#4N)0O%=<4ERDF4L\M;[ZL(WEP-B^'$Z:7U MH]P]609/>+F1E9>#[Z)]8TT,5YEMI"9#[K.#^$8/;.ZFES805"S!7%KTOH)/ ML3;E4CY:$H8Q#JH*ZKU^W/&GG2GPXG](_BA_TO>G\"$F+K>Z^XKN88[(,VCX MX_.[&FB5YDME>&(FE-/AJ,>L.(:G6.W@;4/C-'="*A:'N?V+&ZB4_&63ZN8E M7E)@U+C44`'QU+^#%7Z5W$RSX&U>77+VDN3,6V(BGTZ@?93X-253JRY.X"$$ MXG5X88&9@O'Z!][7T_F`(^$)Q/Q%5']HL*`%^Q./Z'!]%QD/W&L0-P[*SNGW M4[PKWC0:=`2%W(J(2,<6(V+3HL[S)#K=$29#`U@`8N/9)0?^/$,X@^?KW%[5 M5L'$Y7!YN2O=H6G@7-^\2"P=EX4QJ%D)1/)C"KE1%NP9DHM+P:UB3J9N2*(')P516Y.KI($,,TG.<3K0SVTV* MF3@<8D6LRBB@R^U13TXG<[52VF)<[)6-T&5&ASNPKOR.(XUHGHK=D>;&>Z"H M]"O\&C[G,V@1*4'L>KIG!JO( M^(U(<7&_&*X]&'7&BSBG'<%?^[`OT^86LK*(A0\[#T(1ZC0TPW35:,$S;""` M!!-NU^-SA6OC$.>@^`)($YL2H_@:O*U44B,>@RY5J8^>Q`\$`67E8C6GPGCH M3HPK/%3@Q(31F1;C>.=CT9E6^5_>_2(ZTW[EP\YMT9F.QL5WVYF'4S=G`&)U M[+0K(Y3_"`O[0Q_'(6>1/E/%_@:3!O)>)CR+J&.-U0)<:+5H3[X:9J)9FM.Z MU;!ESETCI4LS@P^4O1/V=-EV;KYKC&WGDKM&1?YB#PMWY5Z6(H)MYX.C;3MG M%D3^8HE\8L^]G!L/.PWR/=)^H>)P_;MA9U=X@06V@^BNSS@%>"K!?]19`Q+Y M;+8H-J5&D&OC,(,F,BI=*M^<11"X,?-N9.N9$''Y'T0U"@$````"`````P`` M``0````%````!@````<````(````"0````H````+````#````/[___\.```` M#P```!`````1````$@```!,````4````_O___Q8````7````&````!D````: M````&P```!P````=````_O___Q\````@````(0```"(````C````)````"4` M``#^____)P```"@````I````*@```"L````L````+0```/[____]____,``` M`/[____^_____O______________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M________4@!O`&\`=``@`$4`;@!T`'(`>0`````````````````````````` M`````````````````````````````````!8`!0'__________P,````&"0(` M`````,````````!&`````""OKK3,6;X!X$A8:>Q9O@$R````@`````````!$ M`&$`=`!A```````````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````````"@`"`?_______________P`````````````` M``````````````````````````````````T`````$````````#$`5`!A`&(` M;`!E```````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````.``(``0```/__________```````````````````````` M````````````````````````%0```+,0````````5P!O`'(`9`!$`&\`8P!U M`&T`90!N`'0````````````````````````````````````````````````` M`````!H``@$&````!0```/____\````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````!QD````````%`%,`=0!M`&T`80!R`'D`20!N`&8` M;P!R`&T`80!T`&D`;P!N````````````````````````````````````*``" M`?_______________P`````````````````````````````````````````` M`````!X`````$`````````4`1`!O`&,`=0!M`&4`;@!T`%,`=0!M`&T`80!R M`'D`20!N`&8`;P!R`&T`80!T`&D`;P!N```````````````X``(!!````/__ M________````````````````````````````````````````````````)@`` M```0`````````0!#`&\`;0!P`$\`8@!J```````````````````````````` M`````````````````````````````````````!(``@$"````!P```/____\` M````````````````````````````````````````````````````:@`````` M``!/`&(`:@!E`&,`=`!0`&\`;P!L```````````````````````````````` M````````````````````````````%@`!`/_______________P`````````` M````````````````X$A8:>Q9O@'@2%AI[%F^`0````````````````$```#^ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M________________`0#^_P,*``#_____!@D"``````#`````````1A@```!- M:6-R;W-O9G0@5V]R9"!$;V-U;65N=``*````35-7;W)D1&]C`!````!7;W)D M+D1O8W5M96YT+C@`]#FR<0```````````````-#/$>"AL1KA```````````` M``````#0SQ'@H;$:X0`````````````````````^``,`_O\)``8````````` M``````$````O```````````0```Q`````0```/[___\`````+@```/______ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ =______________________________________\` ` end --Boundary_(ID_vvRtlSLW4S5zfe/hCebLqw) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dr. Donald C. Lay Jr. Applied Ethologist Iowa State University 2356 Kildee Hall Ames, IA 50011 donlay@iastate.edu 515-294-2088 --Boundary_(ID_vvRtlSLW4S5zfe/hCebLqw)-- From: IN%"pfcarell@gw.dec.state.ny.us" "Paul Carella" 16-FEB-1999 15:38:50.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Hypericum Perforatum ( St Johns Wort ) -Reply This is not my field, but some time ago I read that St Johnswort contains an MAO-inhibitor. It should not be mixed with older anti-depressants, but I do not know about fluoxetine. >>> --Mike Taylor -- 02/14/99 05:34pm >>> Dear All, There has been some publicity here recently about the use of a herbal remedy, Hypericum Perforatum, St Johns Wort as an anti depressant in humans, usually instead of Prozac. There is apparently a considerable body of evidence to suggest that it does work and produces far fewer side effects. Does anyone know if this remedy is safe to use in dogs? If so has anyone any experience of its use for behaviour problems in dogs? In essence I am wondering if it can be used as a replacement for fluoxetine. Thanks in anticipation -- --Mike Taylor -- From: IN%"billcamp@cdsnet.net" "Bill Campbell" 16-FEB-1999 17:05:00.85 To: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Living Vs Non-living I think Poe got it right with his question: Is all that we see or seem, But a dream within a dream? I also enjoyed Karl Lashley's tentative conclusions on learning: [paraphrased] After 30 years studying the memory trace, I am inclined to conclude that learning is simply not possible. Bill Campbell :-) At 02:14 PM 2/16/99 -0600, you wrote: >On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Chantal Gaboury wrote: > >> So how do we define living and non-living? Are viruses living? Are >> dorment eggs living? Are spores living? Are those nasty infectuous, >> replicating proteins living? (I don't know what they're called). Or is >> it simply a bad idea to dicotomise the world as such? >> >> Chantal :-) >> > >Interesting questions. There is a whole twilight zone of quasi-living >replicators out there! A world full of genetic algorithms, religions, >scientific dogmas, computer viruses and superstitions which have no DNA >basis to them and yet manage to propagate themselves through some medium >or another. Be it a machine, a biological host or some social milieu. The >distinction between living and non-living is becoming more blurry these >days. Especially if you start thinking about artificial life. What seems >to matter is some process allowing an entity to copy itself and some means >to suck a little energy out of the environment to do it with. Something >alive could be defined as whatever causes a little eddy in the entropic >flow of the universe. To build some temporary order (of matter or >information) at the price of increasing disorder all around. Perhaps it >doesn't make a huge difference of principle whether we are talking about >animals, plants, viruses, machines, programs or "memes". > >Jon;-) > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Jon Watts (___) ) ) >University of Saskatchewan |o o|___________/ ( >Dept of Herd Medicine O \#/ | ) >and Theriogenology |bser| | Statistical | ( >Western College of Vet. Med. |vati| | analysis | ) >52 Campus Drive |ons.| \___________/| *& >Saskatoon ------ || || %$#@ >S7N 1B4 / \ || || ^*@*~ >Canada &^%%#$@ >wattsjon@duke.usask.ca "The Holy Cow" >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: IN%"tstawar@bigfoot.com" 16-FEB-1999 18:53:00.66 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Death of a canine conspecific Hey Applied ethology folks: I'm looking for information about how dogs react to the death of a conspecific. Do they mourn? How is it expressed and for how long? In wolf packs, how do other pack members react to the death of a peer? Some people suggest letting a domestic dog sniff its dead companion? Does this help? How or why? Any help or reference would be greatly appreciated? Terry Terry Stawar, Ed.D., LSP, DABPS Peace River Center 1745 Highway 17, South Bartow, FL 33813 From: IN%"chris.gotman@sympatico.ca" 16-FEB-1999 22:00:31.70 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: Long reply: Immortals, senescence and genes Dear Jon Watts, You bring up an interesting point on immortality and diet. The only way to accomodate a world populated by immortals would be to limit the biosphere to 4 tropic levels: primary producers (ie: a macrophyte that grows as fast as it is pruned), herbivorous consumers, carnivorous parasites, and decomposers (something has to recycle the feces, shed cornified tissue, leaves, etc). Both the herbivores and parasites inflict death while consuming, but they only kill the part they eat -- the victim lives on to be eaten some more. In non-parasitic carnivory the host dies, leaving room for future generations of the host and the possibility of evolution. In a perfect, stable environment, such a world of immortals is sustainable as biomass is recycled continuously. But the real abiotic aspect of the environment is variable and accidents do happen. Constantly. But it is your immortal organisms that are subject to predation and accidents is more along the lines of what I was thinking. It is in considering the benefits and disadvantages of immortality in a real world context that one can try to grasp the advantage of built-in senescence. An immortal organism benefits from it's longevity in that it can disperse its genes through it's offspring for an indefinately long period of time. It's reproductive potential is infinite. A short-lived organism is at a disadvantage in that it has but a definite time-frame in which to procreate. It's reproductive potential is limited. For any organism, its worst competitors are its conspecifics -- they need the exact same things to survive. In an ecosystem completely occupied by mature members of a population, offspring have nowhere to disperse to. Their only hope is for their co-horts to die, one way or another, be it disaster, war or predation. In a population of short-lived organisms, recruitment remains high regardless of predation BECAUSE THEY SELF-PREDATE -- they grow old and die. Note: predators do not control prey. Prey population densities control predator numbers, and the prey are in turn controlled by the availability of their food source. Healthy animals tend to get better at avoiding death with time, and immortal animals have unlimited learning time. It follows that before too long that there would be a marked descrepancy between recruitment rates in immortal and short-lived populations of animals (I don't know what think about plants in this regard). And the new recruits carry the new genes. I'm afraid the math sections in Ricklefs ("Ecology") put me to sleep -- perhaps there's someone here who can post the formulae demonstrating the effect of relative recruitment rates on the accumulation of mutations and ultimately speciation. For me, the faster turn-over rate, accelerated recruitment of new gene combinations and mutants, and increased presence of varieties able to cope with new situations and opportunities within a population explains the advantage and prevalence of senescence in organisms. In order to get "lucky" and produce a nasty, tough or smart genes, a population needs to be replaced by their offspring. Populations of short-lived organisms allow for rapid accumulation of beneficial genes. Multicellular immortals just can't compete. I worked this all out a few years ago while preforming mundane tasks at work. I spoke to a friend whose bachelor's in biology was a decade younger than mine only to be told it was old hat. sincerely, Chris Gotman Quebec, Canada From: IN%"chaucer3@prodigy.net" "Shannon Hill" 16-FEB-1999 23:29:30.90 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology Discussion Group" CC: Subj: Living vs Nonliving This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_gCtP4bEsEqffwvrh4ZmQHA) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Hans Petter Kjaestad wrote: >I wish that everyone who are in a position to educate >people about evolution would make an important distinction: Instead of >talking about "genes", start talking about "a gene". Selection is = exerted >on single genes, and evolution and selection can only really be = explained >in terms of single gene selection. Hello Hans, I was wondering how pathogenicity islands fit into the scheme of = selection occurring only on the single-gene level. My understanding of = the situation is that pathogenicity islands, which are carried by = bacteriophages, are selected for as a group. Selecting for only one = gene in a pathogenicity island eliminates the advantage obtained by the = receiving bacterium. For example, if the gene that infers the adhesive = quality to pili is the only gene in the island receiving selection = pressure, and the gene for pili-structure receives no selection = pressure, then the expression of the adhesive gene is useless. Perhaps = the 'rules' for horizontal transfer differ from that of vertical. =20 Cheers! Shannon Hill Graduate Student East Tennessee State University --Boundary_(ID_gCtP4bEsEqffwvrh4ZmQHA) Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Hans Petter Kjaestad=20 wrote:
 
>I wish that=20 everyone who are in a position to educate
>people about evolution = would=20 make an important distinction: Instead of
>talking about =20 "genes", start talking about "a gene". Selection is=20 exerted
>on single genes, and evolution and selection can only = really be=20 explained >in terms of single gene selection. 
 
Hello = Hans,
 
I was wondering how pathogenicity islands fit into = the scheme=20 of selection occurring only on the = single-gene=20 level.  My understanding of the situation is that pathogenicity = islands,=20 which are carried by bacteriophages, are selected for as a group. =20 Selecting for only one gene in a pathogenicity island eliminates the = advantage=20 obtained by the receiving bacterium.  For example, if the gene that = infers=20 the adhesive quality to pili is the only gene in the island receiving = selection=20 pressure, and the gene for pili-structure receives no selection = pressure, then=20 the expression of the adhesive gene is useless.  Perhaps the = 'rules' for=20 horizontal transfer differ from that of vertical. 
 
Cheers!
 
Shannon Hill
Graduate Student 
East Tennessee State=20 University
 
--Boundary_(ID_gCtP4bEsEqffwvrh4ZmQHA)-- From: IN%"Hans.P.Kjaestad@veths.no" 17-FEB-1999 02:22:39.85 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: "Single" genes >Hans Petter Kjaestad wrote: > >>I wish that everyone who are in a position to educate >>people about evolution would make an important distinction: Instead of >>talking about "genes", start talking about "a gene". Selection is exerted >>on single genes, and evolution and selection can only really be explained >in terms of single gene selection. > >Hello Hans, > >I was wondering how pathogenicity islands fit into the scheme of selection occurring only on the single-gene level. My understanding of the situation is that pathogenicity islands, which are carried by bacteriophages, are selected for as a group. Selecting for only one gene in a pathogenicity island eliminates the advantage obtained by the receiving bacterium. For example, if the gene that infers the adhesive quality to pili is the only gene in the island receiving selection pressure, and the gene for pili-structure receives no selection pressure, then the expression of the adhesive gene is useless. Perhaps the 'rules' for horizontal transfer differ from that of vertical. =20 > >Cheers! > >Shannon Hill >Graduate Student >East Tennessee State University > Hello Shannon! I think that Dawkins' take on this might be as follows: If the phenotypic characteristic "pathogenicity" in a bacterium requires that the bacterium received ALL the genetic material contained in a pathogenicity island, then the whole pathogenicity island in reality is "the gene" for "pathogenicity". It doesn't matter that smaller parts of a gene may have sub-functions such as coding for adhesins etc. If these parts by themselves do not produce phenotypic effects which have a fitness value, they simply are not "genes" in an evolutionary sense. Hans Petter Kj=E6stad The Norwegian School of Veterinary Medicine hans.p.kjaestad@veths.no From: IN%"SUAHLSTR@vetmed.helsinki.fi" "Ahlstrom Susanna" 17-FEB-1999 04:06:17.78 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"virpi.ala-risku@itikka.fi" Subj: Nordic PhD course in Finland ASSESSING FARM ANIMAL WELFARE a Nordic PhD course 26-28 APRIL 1999 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine University of Helsinki We invite you to a Nordic PhD course in farm animal welfare and spring of Helsinki! The course will concentrate on problems and their solutions which have been identified in animal welfare research during the last 10 years. Emphasis will be on * learning and cognition * sources and consequences of stress * effects of spatial restriction, fear and pain * identification of potential sources of motivation and frustration. The main lecturers are Dr. Anne Marie de Passill=E9 and Dr. Jeff Rushen, from the Dairy and Swine Development and Research Centre, Canada. Other lecturers will be confirmed later. Participant number is limited to 40 persons and PhD students will have priority in case of having to select among participants. Senior researchers are also warmly welcome. For the participants who are not registered PhD students, there will be a course fee of FIM 500. We have booked rooms at a student dormitory. It is located at 5 min distance by bus from the faculty. The price per person will be FIM 160 per night (breakfast not available, two persons sharing a double bedroom f= lat with bathroom and kitchen). There is a limited number of rooms available, foreign PhD students will have priority. Please contact organisers for information about hotels with reasonable prices. There is a student cafeteria at the faculty and local restaurants where you can have coffee and lunch. For further information please contact the seminar organisers, Susanna.Ahlstrom@helsinki.fi, Laura.Hanninen@helsinki.fi. Please complete the application form and return it by March 15th 1999 to Susanna Ahlstr=3DF6m, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, P.O. Box 57, 00014 University of Helsinki or fax +358-9-708 49 799. Web site http://www.vetmed.helsinki.fi/welfare/ Application form Name Registered PhD student? Yes / No Organisation Address Phone Fax E-mail Accommodation at the Antti Korpintie Student Dormitory Mon-Tue Yes / No Tue-Wed Yes / No I would like to share a flat with _____________________________ ______________________________________________________ From: IN%"DMills@dmu.ac.uk" "Daniel Mills" 17-FEB-1999 06:08:48.86 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca'" CC: Subj: Correction to meeting on emotional disorders in companion animal s Please not: the meeting starts as 8:30, with the first talk at 09:15 and not as previously advertised Annual study day of the Companion Animal Behaviour Therapy Study Group Venue; The Council House Birmingham U.K. Date: April 7th 1999=20 Sponsors:=20 Novartis Animal Health UK Ltd=20 Sanofi Animal Health Ltd General enquiries Registration details/ payment: Daniel Mills BVSc MRCVS Pauline Appleby, De Montfort University Lincoln CABTSG Study Day Organiser School of Agriculture Hillside Caythorpe Campus Upper St. Caythorpe Defford Lincs Worcs NG32 3EP WR8 9AB UK UK Tel 44 (0)1400 275629 Tel 44 (0)1386 750534 Fax 44(0)1400 275686 Fax 44(0)1386 750743 e-mail dmills@dmu.ac.uk e-mail pauline@petbcent.demon.co.uk A day of animal emotion, mood and affect 08:30 Registration and coffee=20 09:15 The biology of emotions Gill Sheppard, Department of Animal Science, De Montfort University Lincoln 10:00 The effects of nutrition on mood and emotion Dr Peter Rogers, Dept of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol 10:45 Coffee interval 11:15 The validity of animal models of emotional disturbances in people Prof. Paul Willner, University of Swansea Wales 12:00 Anxiety is not a diagnosis - different forms of the clinical entity Prof. Sandra File, Neuroscience Research Centre, GKT School of Biomedical Sciences 12:45 Lunch 14:00 Recognising and treating companion animal emotional problems in practice Robin Walker, Centre Of Applied Pet Ethology, Worcester 14:45 Free papers 15:45 Tea break 16:00 A.G.M. Cost including buffet lunch and drinks sponsored by Novartis Animal Health Ltd Members =A330:00 Student members (including student nurses) =A310.00 - NB written = evidence required with application Non-members =A350.00 Please make cheques payable to CABTSG Daniel S. Mills BVSc MRCVS Senior Lecturer in Behavioural Studies & Animal Welfare School of Agriculture Faculty of Applied Sciences De Montfort University Lincoln Caythorpe Campus Caythorpe Lincs NG32 3EP UK Tel 01400 275629 Fax 01400 275686 e-mail dmills@dmu.ac.uk From: IN%"Hans.P.Kjaestad@veths.no" 17-FEB-1999 08:30:36.14 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: perpetuating genes Dear All, In a recent message about evolution I wrote something like "most people have a weak grasp of genetics and evolution". I then realized that a colleague of mine had taken that message to be a stab at the contributors to this list. Oops! That was not what I intended at all. What I meant by "most people" was individuals whose background is not ethology, zoology, biology or even science at all, but who still have ideas about what evolution means. Sincerely, Hans Petter Kjaestad From: IN%"haussman@rs4703.ansc1.uni-hohenheim.de" "HANS HAUSSMANN" 17-FEB-1999 10:33:07.38 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Course on horses (in German) For German speaking friends of horses only: I have organized a two weeks course (with 41 lectures given by 35 experts) on husbandry of and activities with h o r s e s. For details see "www.uni-hohenheim.de/aw/HippHo.htm". Regards ___________________ Hans Haussmann haussman@uni-hohenheim.de ,--¬_ Dept. for Animal Husbandry and Animal Breeding ,;;,_ ____/ /|/ (Institut fuer Tierhaltung und Tierzuechtung) ;; ( )___, ) ' University of Hohenheim, Germany ,' // V\__ Fax + 49 711 459 4239 _ / \ / \ Fon + 49 711 459 2476 (3006) ¬ ¬ ' Home page www.uni-hohenheim.de/aw ___________________ Mail 470/NT, Uni Hohenheim, D-70593 Stuttgart From: IN%"scrowell@calc.vet.uga.edu" "Sharon Crowell-Davis" 17-FEB-1999 11:00:39.09 To: IN%"tstawar@bigfoot.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Death of a canine conspecific A few months ago a patient at the UGA hospital died of complications which occurred during orthopedic surgery. There were two dogs and a cat at home. The owner was concerned about whether she should just leave it that the dead dog "disappeared" or let its "friends" back home see the body. The long and short of several "we don't really know what's best for the surviving pets" discussions was that she took the body home, accompanied by myself and a graduate student. The deceased dog was placed in a hole which the owner had already dug and which had the dirt piled beside the hole. The owner then called the other animals. After substantial hesitation, which the owner said was atypical, the older dog, whom the owner said had been closest to the deceased dog, came forward and sniffed it around the head. It then used its muzzle to start scooping dirt onto the head of the dead dog. Then it sniffed some more. Then it scooped more dirt until the head was pretty well covered. Then it walked around the entire grave, continuing to look and sniff. It finally left and refused to come back. The other dog never did make it all the way up to the grave and acted very nervous and fearful. After awhile, the cat came and sat near the body and just stared and stared. I was taping all this (including the dog burying its companion), and finally stopped as the cat continued to do this. The cat hardly moved for about 20 minutes (to the best of my recollection without going back and reviewing the tape). It finally got up and slowly walked away. The owner said she'd never seen the cat act like that before. Sharon Crowell-Davis ********************************************** Sharon L. Crowell-Davis DVM, PhD Diplomate, American College of Veterinary Behaviorists College of Veterinary Medicine University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602 scrowell@calc.vet.uga.edu If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has so much as to be out of danger? T.H. Huxley On Elementary Instruction in Physiology From: IN%"SBXNG@sbn3.phes.nottingham.ac.uk" "Nigel Goodwin" 17-FEB-1999 11:29:26.31 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Cause of death > Consider as well that it is in the best interest of our genes that we > grow old and die. The old must make room so that the new varieties can > live and breed. In a world inhabited by immortals, speciation would > cease, biological diversity would stagnate, and the biosphere would be > more fragile, at greater risk from vagrancies in the abiotic > environment. > > sincerely, > Chris Gotman > Quebec, Canada Nice idea, but sounds rather group-selectionist to me. I buy the evolutionary explanation of death that was nicely described by David Suzuki a few years back. We die because once we have successfully passed on our genes to our offspring, there is no evolutionary pressure on us to stay alive. As long as the genes live on, the organism is dispensable. If we were to set up a social experiment in which no-one was allowed to breed before the age of 40, and then a few generations later 50, then 60 and so on, we could eventually prolong the human lifespan to 200 years or more. (I'm quoting someone else now - Dawkins?) Selection would then favour longevity. But perhaps we're better off as we are! Nigel From: IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "Deborah McWilliams" 17-FEB-1999 12:20:43.12 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cause of death Hello Nigel! > Nice idea, but sounds rather group-selectionist to me. I buy the > evolutionary explanation of death that was nicely described by David > Suzuki a few years back. We die because once we have successfully > passed on our genes to our offspring, there is no evolutionary > pressure on us to stay alive. As long as the genes live on, the > organism is dispensable. I was 31 when I finally accepted the specialists' decree that I would not have children (meaning not pass on my genes). I am 45 and still kicking. DebMcW dmcwilliams@aps.uoguelph.ca Deborah A. McWilliams Room 043, Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2X7 From: IN%"bregman@interactive.net" "VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN" 17-FEB-1999 12:31:52.05 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cause of death At 05:26 PM 2/17/99 +0000, Nigel Goodwin wrote: >> Consider as well that it is in the best interest of our genes that we >> grow old and die. The old must make room so that the new varieties can >> live and breed. In a world inhabited by immortals, speciation would >> cease, biological diversity would stagnate, and the biosphere would be >> more fragile, at greater risk from vagrancies in the abiotic >> environment. >> >> sincerely, >> Chris Gotman >> Quebec, Canada > >Nice idea, but sounds rather group-selectionist to me. I buy the >evolutionary explanation of death that was nicely described by David >Suzuki a few years back. We die because once we have successfully >passed on our genes to our offspring, there is no evolutionary >pressure on us to stay alive. As long as the genes live on, the >organism is dispensable. > >If we were to set up a social experiment in which no-one was allowed >to breed before the age of 40, and then a few generations later 50, >then 60 and so on, we could eventually prolong the human lifespan to >200 years or more. (I'm quoting someone else now - Dawkins?) >Selection would then favour longevity. But perhaps we're better off >as we are! > >Nigel This would certainly work for the males, but there seems to something missing in the female equation. If no females were bred past 50 we would soon run out of people. Even with extraordinary help only two or three females past 60 have reproduced. Another experiment devised by males ........(grin) Vivian dog trainer who knows enough biology to know about menopause....... Vivian Bregman mailto:bregman@interactive.net From: IN%"bregman@interactive.net" "VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN" 17-FEB-1999 12:38:28.54 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cause of death At 01:19 PM 2/17/99 -0400, Deborah McWilliams wrote: >Hello Nigel! > >> Nice idea, but sounds rather group-selectionist to me. I buy the >> evolutionary explanation of death that was nicely described by David >> Suzuki a few years back. We die because once we have successfully >> passed on our genes to our offspring, there is no evolutionary >> pressure on us to stay alive. As long as the genes live on, the >> organism is dispensable. > > > I was 31 when I finally accepted the specialists' decree that I >would not have children (meaning not pass on my genes). I am 45 and >still kicking. > >DebMcW I am 62. I have had no natural children --- mine are adopted. What does that say about passing along genes?? BTW, My husband is 69 and has also not passed along his genes. Is it possible that Mother Nature is waiting for us to do so?? And then will off us?? Vivian dog trainer Vivian Bregman mailto:bregman@interactive.net From: IN%"VerkerkG@drc.co.nz" "Verkerk, Gwyn" 17-FEB-1999 13:03:26.79 To: IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "'Deborah McWilliams'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cause of death A retrospective study of English people, which was published late in 1998, and I can't remember where sorry - showed that those who were longest-lived had fewer children. The study was based around comparing two sub-populations in the late 19th and late 20th centuries. I can't remember whether there was a difference between the two groups, but overall the ones with more children dies younger. Maybe someone else read the paper and can remember more of the details. Gwyneth Verkerk BVSc DPhil Dairying Research Corporation Private Bag 3123 Hamilton New Zealand pH (+64) 7 838 5694 From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 17-FEB-1999 14:09:38.38 To: IN%"SBXNG@sbn3.phes.nottingham.ac.uk" "Nigel Goodwin" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Cause of death On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Nigel Goodwin wrote: > Nice idea, but sounds rather group-selectionist to me. I buy the > evolutionary explanation of death that was nicely described by David > Suzuki a few years back. We die because once we have successfully > passed on our genes to our offspring, there is no evolutionary > pressure on us to stay alive. As long as the genes live on, the > organism is dispensable. Don't forget that older humans, past reproductive age, can also care for grandchildren, thus helping ensure survival and proliferation of copies of their own genes. One comment attributed to J.B.S. Haldane goes something like this: when asked if he would jump into a flooding river, at the risk of his life to save his brother, he replied that he would not, but that he would if it would save more than two brothers or more than eight cousins. (forgive me if I didn't get the story quite right, but you get the picture). Haldane should have jumped into a river to save >4 of his grandchildren. According to Hamilton's rule acts of altruism should be seen where b/c > 1/r, if b is the benefit to the recipient of the act, c is the cost to the altruist (in terms of fitness) and r is the relatedness between them. Presumably as one's own potential to produce offspring (relatedness = 0.5) dwindles, the advantage of switching investment to the preservation of grandchildren (relatedness = .25) should increase. The cost to one's own fitness of investment in an altruistic act towards a relative is very low if one can no longer reproduce anyway. Therefore the net benefit should be fairly high. So maybe a very elderly Haldane (particularly if he were female) should jump in to save just one grandchild. Or in a less dramatic fashion give up time and resources to help ensure his grandchildren's prosperity. > > If we were to set up a social experiment in which no-one was allowed > to breed before the age of 40, and then a few generations later 50, > then 60 and so on, we could eventually prolong the human lifespan to > 200 years or more. (I'm quoting someone else now - Dawkins?) > Selection would then favour longevity. But perhaps we're better off > as we are! > > Nigel > A more effective, if even more draconian, social experiment for increasing human lifespan might be to make everybody give up their own children to be cared for solely and strictly by a genetic relative over the age of 60 or else to die. Then a few (thousand?) generations later by a relative over 70 and so on.. By increasing the survival value to an individual of having competent live ancestors of a great age, one ought to be able to select for greater longevity. As for being better off as we are, I'd be happy to live to 200 if I had the chance. Jon ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Watts (___) ) ) University of Saskatchewan |o o|___________/ ( Dept of Herd Medicine O \#/ | ) and Theriogenology |bser| | Statistical | ( Western College of Vet. Med. |vati| | analysis | ) 52 Campus Drive |ons.| \___________/| *& Saskatoon ------ || || %$#@ S7N 1B4 / \ || || ^*@*~ Canada &^%%#$@ wattsjon@duke.usask.ca "The Holy Cow" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"pfcarell@gw.dec.state.ny.us" "Paul Carella" 17-FEB-1999 15:12:16.86 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Cause of death -Reply Isn't it interesting that humans with their big brains (apologies to K. Vonnegut) are in the process of destroying life as we presently know it on this planet yet these little arrangements of material we call genes, who can't even THINK, will keep things going long after we are out of the picture. >>> Nigel Goodwin 02/17/99 12:26pm >>> > Consider as well that it is in the best interest of our genes that we > grow old and die. The old must make room so that the new varieties can > live and breed. In a world inhabited by immortals, speciation would > cease, biological diversity would stagnate, and the biosphere would be > more fragile, at greater risk from vagrancies in the abiotic > environment. > > sincerely, > Chris Gotman > Quebec, Canada Nice idea, but sounds rather group-selectionist to me. I buy the evolutionary explanation of death that was nicely described by David Suzuki a few years back. We die because once we have successfully passed on our genes to our offspring, there is no evolutionary pressure on us to stay alive. As long as the genes live on, the organism is dispensable. If we were to set up a social experiment in which no-one was allowed to breed before the age of 40, and then a few generations later 50, then 60 and so on, we could eventually prolong the human lifespan to 200 years or more. (I'm quoting someone else now - Dawkins?) Selection would then favour longevity. But perhaps we're better off as we are! Nigel From: IN%"cr@questforbalance.com.au" 17-FEB-1999 15:34:42.13 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Shame in animals Dear all, Does anyone have any knowledge of any research about the concept of shame in animals. Thanks Carlos From: IN%"dreyn@sirius.com" 17-FEB-1999 15:51:06.42 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-Ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Cause of death -Reply > Paul Carella wrote: > > > > Isn't it interesting that humans with their big brains (apologies to K. > > Vonnegut) are in the process of destroying life as we presently know it > > on this planet yet these little arrangements of material we call genes, > > who can't even THINK, will keep things going long after we are out of the > > picture. > Hmmmmm...who says genes can't 'think'. Hasn't it been suggested by 'someone' out there that cancer may be a handy tool for Gaia to rid herself of those pesky organisms that are so busy "destroying life as we presently know it." It's all a plot !! Or at least one hec of a good script idea for 'X-files' ! ;o) Donna Reynolds From: IN%"bregman@interactive.net" "VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN" 17-FEB-1999 16:48:18.46 To: IN%"VerkerkG@drc.co.nz" "Verkerk, Gwyn", IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "'Deborah McWilliams'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cause of death At 08:01 AM 2/18/99 +1300, Verkerk, Gwyn wrote: >A retrospective study of English people, which was published late in >1998, and I can't remember where sorry - showed that those who were >longest-lived had fewer children. The study was based around comparing >two sub-populations in the late 19th and late 20th centuries. I can't >remember whether there was a difference between the two groups, but >overall the ones with more children dies younger. > >Maybe someone else read the paper and can remember more of the details. > >Gwyneth Verkerk BVSc DPhil Having had kids, (adopted) and taken care of my grandsons, two, maybe they were worked to death. Genes may have nothing to do with it. Vivian Vivian Bregman mailto:bregman@interactive.net From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 17-FEB-1999 17:11:30.03 To: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" CC: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca", IN%"SBXNG@sbn3.phes.nottingham.ac.uk" "Nigel Goodwin", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Cause of death Jon Watts wrote: > > Haldane should have jumped into a river to save >4 of his grandchildren. > According to Hamilton's rule acts of altruism should be seen where b/c > > 1/r, if b is the benefit to the recipient of the act, c is the cost to the > altruist (in terms of fitness) and r is the relatedness between them. > Following are the most piognant comments I have ever read describing altruism and who should jump into a river and whom should be saved. "Theoretically, the most willing lifegaurd should be a physically fit eunuch or post-reproductive individual (who has nothing to lose in terms of personal fitness, and with few living relatives (little to lose in terms of future gain to inclusive fitness through aid to close kin). A good beneficiary is one with high reproductive value such as a pregnant low-income Catholic teenager about to produce her first child." M. J. West-Eberhard, 1975. The evolution of social behavior by kin selection. Q. Rev. Biol., 50:1-33. The point is that altruism is usually explained with examples using close relatives and the high-cost and great-benefits approach. However, if you play around with the formula you can imagine there are senarios where altruism can occur because the risk (cost) is very low, such as the highly skilled life-gaurd and the benefit need not be so high. If you can not swim very well maybe you should only save your pregnant sister, however if you are an excellent lifegaurd what do you risk and what would you gain in saving a complete stranger? Maybe for humans in modern society it is the publicity that follows heroic events that increases your own personal fitness and you don't need to rescue only relatives. I would be curious to know whether the sex ratio of modern day heroes who rescue victims is skewd towards a particular sex. I wonder if being an altruistic hero as a human has maybe more direct payoffs to the altruist then just the inclusive fitness gained through the saved victim or recipient of the altruistic act. Maybe being an altruist just builds a better "C.V." to help attract more or better mates! Just some of my sociobiological ramblings! Joe Stookey ======================= From: IN%"tstawar@bigfoot.com" 17-FEB-1999 17:29:45.96 To: IN%"scrowell@calc.vet.uga.edu" "Sharon Crowell-Davis" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Death of a canine conspecific Sharon Crowell-Davis wrote: > > A few months ago a patient at the UGA hospital died of complications > which occurred during orthopedic surgery. There were two dogs and a > cat at home. The owner was concerned about whether she should just > leave it that the dead dog "disappeared" or let its "friends" back > home see the body. The long and short of several "we don't really > know what's best for the surviving pets" discussions was that she > took the body home, accompanied by myself and a graduate student. > > The deceased dog was placed in a hole which the owner had already dug > and which had the dirt piled beside the hole. The owner then called > the other animals. After substantial hesitation, which the owner > said was atypical, the older dog, whom the owner said had been > closest to the deceased dog, came forward and sniffed it around the > head. It then used its muzzle to start scooping dirt onto the head > of the dead dog. Then it sniffed some more. Then it scooped more > dirt until the head was pretty well covered. Then it walked around > the entire grave, continuing to look and sniff. It finally left and > refused to come back. The other dog never did make it all the way up > to the grave and acted very nervous and fearful. After awhile, the > cat came and sat near the body and just stared and stared. I was > taping all this (including the dog burying its companion), and > finally stopped as the cat continued to do this. The cat hardly moved > for about 20 minutes (to the best of my recollection without going > back and reviewing the tape). It finally got up and slowly walked > away. The owner said she'd never seen the cat act like that before. > > Sharon Crowell-Davis > > ********************************************** > Sharon L. Crowell-Davis DVM, PhD > Diplomate, American College of Veterinary Behaviorists > College of Veterinary Medicine > University of Georgia > Athens, Georgia 30602 > scrowell@calc.vet.uga.edu > > If a little knowledge is dangerous, > where is the man who has so much > as to be out of danger? > > T.H. Huxley Dr. Crowell-Davis, Thanks so much for your facinating observations. Although the tendency to anthropomorphize is great, did you come to any opinions on what you observed? Do you think the older dog discriminated a "scent of death" or the beginings of decay and responded instinctively. I suppose this lead back to Decartes-- Do animals have souls or an intellect capable of consciousness of death? As a behaviorist have you ever treated a dog for bereavement? What do your do? Terry Terry L. Stawar, Ed.D. D.A.B.P.S., LSP Clinical Director Peace River Center 1745 Highway 17 South Bartow, FLorida 338313 From: IN%"dreyn@sirius.com" 17-FEB-1999 18:28:03.93 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-Ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Death of a canine conspecific > Sharon Crowell-Davis wrote: > > The owner then called > > the other animals. After substantial hesitation, which the owner > > said was atypical, the older dog, whom the owner said had been > > closest to the deceased dog, came forward and sniffed it around the > > head. It then used its muzzle to start scooping dirt onto the head > > of the dead dog. Then it sniffed some more. Then it scooped more > > dirt until the head was pretty well covered. Then it walked around > > the entire grave, continuing to look and sniff. It finally left and > > refused to come back. The other dog never did make it all the way up > > to the grave and acted very nervous and fearful. I hate to play devil's advocate here (because I do believe dogs are quite capable of experiencing and expressing grief) - but am wondering how much of the "substantial hesitation" of the first dog and "nervous and fearful" reactions of the second was actually in response to the unusual behavior of the +owner+ ? Surely the owner was feeling strong emotions at the grave of her beloved pet (even if they weren't outwardly expressed...dogs are such pros at reading their peoples' signals). When alpha female is appearing distressed and engaged in an out-of the-ordinary activity, wouldn't it make sense smart dogs would become fearful...unsure of what danger might be about ?? Add the smell of death to the scene and I sure would hold back if I were a dog. Just thinking out loud, Donna Reynolds From: IN%"bregman@interactive.net" "VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN" 17-FEB-1999 20:20:47.57 To: IN%"dreyn@sirius.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-Ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Death of a canine conspecific At 05:59 PM 2/17/99 +0000, Racer-Reynolds Illustration wrote: > >I hate to play devil's advocate here (because I do believe dogs are >quite capable of experiencing and expressing grief) - but am wondering >how much of the "substantial hesitation" of the first dog and "nervous >and fearful" reactions of the second was actually in response to the >unusual behavior of the +owner+ ? >Surely the owner was feeling strong emotions at the grave of her >beloved pet (even if they weren't outwardly expressed...dogs are such >pros at reading their peoples' signals). When alpha female is >appearing distressed and engaged in an out-of the-ordinary activity, >wouldn't it make sense smart dogs would become fearful...unsure of >what danger might be about ?? >Add the smell of death to the scene and I sure would hold back if I >were a dog. > >Just thinking out loud, >Donna Reynolds I agree with Donna on this. I always warn my students about assuming that the dog is thinking something when it so often is the dog's response to the owner's attitude. "My dog knows that it's wrong to poop in the house. As soon as I walk in and see it she leaves the room" Really?? What kind of a face do you make when you smell it and do you suppose that the dog knows that everytime he sees that face the next thing that happens is that you yell at him. With no idea why. Vivian dog trainer " No piece of equipment is idiot proof to the right idiot and anything can be misused." Vivian Bregman and the Border Collies in NJ Kelev Canine College, Inc.* *NADOI # 860 & APDT #1220P * bregman@interactive.net *Showing since 1963, Teaching since 1965 From: IN%"chris.gotman@sympatico.ca" 17-FEB-1999 22:17:16.08 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cause of death Dear Nigel Goodwin, I find this explanation for senescence to lack a mechanism: "We die because once we have successfully passed on our genes to our offspring, there is no evolutionary pressure on us to stay alive. The opposite is easy to see: there is an evolutionary pressure on organisms to remain alive long enough to produce viable young. Organisms that die before producing viable young aren't represented by future generations, and the characteristics that caused their untimely demise don't get passed on. But if all else is equal, living longer than your conspecifics gives an edge: you have time to produce more offspring. Your offspring, carrying the longevity gene, also produce a disproportionately large number of young, as will their offspring. With each succeeding generation your decendants will occupy a larger and larger percentage of the population. Eventually the entire population will be related to you and carry your longevity gene. Thus the advantage of living longer, and thus there *IS* an evolutionary pressure to stay alive. Sorry, David Suzuki. And in case you missed it, there is also an evolutionary pressure to breed as soon as possible. The longer you wait, the greater the chance you will meet an untimely end before you get the chance to breed. If mortality was contingent on successfully reproducing, childless couples would live forever. BUT... the interesting ramifications of built in obsolescence is what behavioral changes incur that speed-up an organism's demise. sincerely, Chris Gotman Quebec, Canada From: IN%"lynfra@globalnet.co.uk" "Lynn Frances Crook" 18-FEB-1999 04:34:37.04 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Death of a canine conspecific I've always let the remaining dogs in my pack have a good sniff around a dead one wherever possible. The last one who died was a Gordon setter who was my top bitch. The youngest bitch did a lot of nosing and sniffing round, the other 4 simply sniffed a bit and milled round a bit and the dog who is top sniffed a bit but then followed her body out to the car when it went, with his nose on it. I don't know if it is to do with my reactions but they did not appear after that to look for her at all----wheras with the GSD who died at the vets they were unsettled for a long while----but so was I!! lynn From: IN%"appleby@petbcent.demon.co.uk" "David Appleby" 18-FEB-1999 06:09:00.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-ethology" CC: Subj: MS and PhD Programs in Companion Animals Dear Don, Thanks for sending your list to the group. In article <3.0.32.19990216144529.0069285c@pop-3.iastate.edu>, Donald C Lay Jr. writes >8) For details of courses in the UK you should contact the Association of >Pet Behaviour Counsellors who will send you a list of all courses that are >available and contact details for each course. The address is >apbc@petbcent.demon.co.uk This information is also available at http://www.apbc.org.uk/EDULINKS.HTM Speak to you soon. David ---------------------------------------- Name:David Appleby Address:The Pet Behaviour Centre, Upper street, Defford, Worcestershire. WR8 9AB.England. Phone:+44(0)1386 750615 Fax:+44(0)1386 750743 E-mail:appleby@petbcent.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.petbcent.demon.co.uk ---------------------------------------- From: IN%"bregman@interactive.net" "VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN" 18-FEB-1999 06:49:16.69 To: IN%"chris.gotman@sympatico.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cause of death At 11:14 PM 2/17/99 -0800, chris gotman wrote: > > If mortality was contingent on successfully reproducing, childless >couples would live forever. Would this mean that homosexuals would live forever?? Vivian just asking, heterosexual -- never gave birth -- two adopted children --- planning on living forever...... From: IN%"scrowell@calc.vet.uga.edu" "Sharon Crowell-Davis" 18-FEB-1999 08:11:19.61 To: IN%"tstawar@bigfoot.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Death of a canine conspecific Terry Yes, I studiously avoided trying to interpret that incident. My personal opinion at this point is that the old dog recognized the dead dog, and recognized that it was dead. I am left mystified as to why it buried the head and only the head. The opportunity was obviously critical to this happening. The dead dog was in a hole, and loose dirt was available. In response to Vivian's comment, it is certainly possible that the dogs were, to some degree, responding to the owner's behavior. She was definately bereaved and not trying to hide it for the dog's sake. However, most of their attention was directed towards the body and the hole, not towards the owner who was standing or sitting nearby. I have previously had as patients dogs and cats that show strong behavior changes subsequent to the death or loss of either a human, dog or cat in the family, including anorexia and what the owners describe as depression, e.g. won't play anymore and lies around all the time. I have had numerous reports of the remaining pet wandering around the house appearing to look for the absent animal or person. Historically I hadn't really paid attention to the question of whether or not the surviving animal had ever seen the dead one post-mortem or whether the absent animal had simply "disappeared" (from the survivor's perspective). I will do so in the future. Sharon Crowell-Davis Sharon Crowell-Davis > Dr. Crowell-Davis, > > Thanks so much for your facinating observations. Although the tendency > to anthropomorphize is great, did you come to any opinions > on what you observed? Do you think the older dog discriminated a "scent > of death" or the beginings of decay and responded instinctively. I > suppose this lead back to Decartes-- Do animals have souls or an > intellect capable of consciousness of death? As a behaviorist have you > ever treated a dog for bereavement? What do your do? > > Terry > > Terry L. Stawar, Ed.D. D.A.B.P.S., LSP > Clinical Director > Peace River Center > 1745 Highway 17 South > Bartow, FLorida 338313 > ********************************************** Sharon L. Crowell-Davis DVM, PhD Diplomate, American College of Veterinary Behaviorists College of Veterinary Medicine University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602 scrowell@calc.vet.uga.edu If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has so much as to be out of danger? T.H. Huxley On Elementary Instruction in Physiology From: IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "Deborah McWilliams" 18-FEB-1999 09:15:39.36 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Death of a canine conspecific I raise rats and have several experiences (anecdotal) where a companion of a cagemate died or was euthanized. Types of reactions have been: 1) One female rat stopped eating and became recumbent. She was limp if lifted and handled and her eyes appeared glazed over. A new companion brought her to life and within an hour she was eating, playing and grooming the new addition. 2) One female rat went into hiding and would not come out when her sick companion was euthanized. A new addition brought her out and she became her usual, sociable self. DebMcW dmcwilliams@aps.uoguelph.ca Deborah A. McWilliams Room 043, Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2X7 From: IN%"emily.patterson-kane@vuw.ac.nz" "Emily G Patterson-Kane" 18-FEB-1999 14:21:02.55 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Death of a canine conspecific >I raise rats and have several experiences (anecdotal) where a >companion of a cagemate died or was euthanized. Types of reactions >have been: > >1) One female rat stopped eating and became recumbent. She was limp >if lifted and handled and her eyes appeared glazed over. A new >companion brought her to life and within an hour she was eating, >playing and grooming the new addition. > >2) One female rat went into hiding and would not come out when her >sick companion was euthanized. A new addition brought her out and >she became her usual, sociable self. > >DebMcW Rats are definately very social, but with pairs, isolation stress may be part of the cause of the abnormal behaviour. Rats can react badly to isolation, especially if their previous experinece was more enriched. E From: IN%"cgaboury@total.net" 19-FEB-1999 00:00:57.91 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cause of death VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN wrote: > > At 11:14 PM 2/17/99 -0800, chris gotman wrote: > > > > If mortality was contingent on successfully reproducing, childless > >couples would live forever. > > Would this mean that homosexuals would live forever?? > > Vivian > just asking, > heterosexual -- never gave birth -- two adopted children --- planning on > living forever...... I was thinking about homosexutality, as well, with regards to this discussion. Although I am not very up-to-date on whatever information is available, as far as I know, there is somewhat of a debate on whether homosexuality is a choice, or whether it is biologically determined (or perhaps both?). Although there have been some differences found between the biology of homosexual men and heterosexual men. (There is an area of the brain that has been found to be different.) What is not know is whether the men are homosexual because of this brain difference or whether the brain changes due to the homosexuality. So what I was wondering, is if homosexuality is biologically determined, how does this happen? Heritability cannot explain the persistance of this lifestyle since homosexuals do not (usually) reproduce. However, perhaps there is some trait (or gene) that predisposes a person to choose a homosexual lifestyle (or more precisely, to be attracted to his own gender), and then culture and the environment take over from there and determine the final outcome...Then this gene could be passed on by carriers with a heterosexual phenotype. It seems as though there is a higher number of homosexual individuals today, than there was before. I'm not sure whether it is because society has opened "its (collective) mind", been less discriminatory towards these people and allowed them to voice their preferences or if there really is a higher number of homosexuals? Someone posted some comments about a month ago about abnormal (homosexual) behaviours in the animals due to insecticides that mimic animal hormones...it did get me wondering about the chemicals that are put on our food etc. Could they be having some kind of effect on our hormones? I would like to add that I realize that this is a delicate subject and that I have no intention of offending anyone. Chantal :-) From: IN%"aa266@cleveland.Freenet.Edu" 19-FEB-1999 00:33:42.66 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Controlled by my genes >I keep pinned to my board a quotation I saw on this network, from >someone called Hebb: 'Behavior is controlled 100% by genetics and >100% by the environment.' The influences of the environment are >immensely complex, and in at least the case of humans they include >self-reflection and conscious decision making. I find evolutionary >psychology fascinating, and its proponents certainly do not deny the >existence of the human mind or its involvement in human behaviour, >nor do they see the mind as mechanistically produced by genes. > >Mike Appleby > Therefore, might it be more accurate to describe the building of a next generation something like: The male of the species is genetically programed to find a receptive, fertile female (also genetically programed to be receptive in such a situation) and both have a delightful experience because the mating process is genetically programed to encourage participants to repeat the process as often as possible. And of course, neither male nor female would be there to experience said delightful event if other genes and mutations had not made each of them at least equal to and perhaps superior (from a survival perspective) than their conspecifics (good luck aside). That is, genes program behavior, but it is the behavior (learned to a significant degree) that results in gene survival; the gene(s) being mere protein, thus having no decision or selection abilities. And if that is so, is it not seriously inaccurate to say, "He went out to perpetuate his genes"? (Unless "he" refers to a learned human individual who really did make that conscious decision.) -- ^ ^ DBC (aka D.B. Cameron, DVM) < \ / > Animal Behavior Clinic 440/826-0013 ! ! 18250 Main Street Fx: 234-3407 .. Middleburg Hts., OH 44130 From: IN%"aa266@cleveland.Freenet.Edu.But.then.chance.shows.up.and.a.blizzard.or" 19-FEB-1999 00:54:15.82 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Controlled by my genes >landslide or something wipes out population #1. So now a scientist looks >at the animals, the descendants of population #2, and they are all doing >the same behavior and the conclusion would be that there must have been a >selective pressure on that behavior and the scientist would look for the >reasons. But chance played just as much a role in the behavior being >present as did natural selection! Chance happens on a moment to moment basis, and those who are not able to survive a specific chance event don't get a chance to pass on their genes. To take your illustrations, if an individual has a heavier coat because of a mutation, it is better able to survive a chance blizzard. Or if another individual has slightly sharper hearing, better vision, faster reflexes, etc. it is more likely to survive the chance landslide. Chance is the selector. As I understand evolution, the very first rule is: There is no "reason" involved. To illustrate: we do not have eyes so we can see. We see because we have eyes which makes us more likely to be successful (survive to reproductive age) than those who do not have eyes. > >We want there to be reasons for everything and hate to think that something >might simply not have a reason. And I have my doubts that a research >project that concludes that a behavior doesn't have an adaptive >significance would continue to get funded. Chance is an issue we simply >don't want to deal with. > Except for theological reasons, why do you crave a reason? And if chance is not dealt with, reality is not dealt with. >Janice Willard DVM, MS > > > -- ^ ^ DBC (aka D.B. Cameron, DVM) < \ / > Animal Behavior Clinic 440/826-0013 ! ! 18250 Main Street Fx: 234-3407 .. Middleburg Hts., OH 44130 From: IN%"buzzzeee@hotmail.com" "louise *" 19-FEB-1999 00:57:26.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: animal behaviour at uni Hi, I'm in my last year of highschool and I'm interested in studying ethology at uni when I leave. This list is very interesting and I was wondering if this is the kind of thing you do when you are working? Do you chose a project and stay with it, or are you involved in a lot of things at once? Also, I was wondering if anyone knows how you go about getting into an ethology course in Australia, because as far as I know it is pretty hard, and I'm not sure if there are many uni's which offer it. Anyway, keep talking about all this interesting stuff!! Louise ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From: IN%"GMillar@dmu.ac.uk" "Gary Millar" 19-FEB-1999 04:41:44.04 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Controlled by my genes In reply to Janice Willard, Isnt the whole premise of evolution variation, heritability and differential survival and reproduction.? Is it relevant whether this differential survival and reproduction is brought about by a 'chance' event or by a selective pressure? It could be said that an unstable environment is just another selective pressure. It is the mutation that is the chance event and selection that then gives direction to the process of evolution dependant on differential survival and reproduction. It should not be assumed that all mutations are adaptive, because that is not the case, nor should it be assumed that all beneficial mutations are selected for as there may have arisen in a situation that eradicates them via a chance event , for example. However, over numerous generations the beneficial genes will survive and reproduce to a greater extent than the alternatives and will, hence, spread through a population. I was giving a lecture yesterday on the subject of modelling in behavioural ecology using survival, number of offspring produced etc and this whole argument of whether or not control of the individual was at the level of the gene or not was raised by one of my students, who argued that the presence of the gene was there purely to control the proximate functioning of the individual with no requirement of replicating into the next generation. I would be interested to here what peolple think of this approach Gary Millar Dept of Animal Science Faculty of Applied Sciences De Montfort University UK gmillar@dmu.ac.uk > -----Original Message----- > From: aa266@cleveland.Freenet.Edu [SMTP:aa266@cleveland.Freenet.Edu] > Sent: 19 February 1999 06:53 > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Controlled by my genes > > >landslide or something wipes out population #1. So now a scientist > looks > >at the animals, the descendants of population #2, and they are all > doing > >the same behavior and the conclusion would be that there must have > been a > >selective pressure on that behavior and the scientist would look for > the > >reasons. But chance played just as much a role in the behavior being > >present as did natural selection! > > Chance happens on a moment to moment basis, and those who are not > able to survive a specific chance event don't get a chance to pass on > their genes. To take your illustrations, if an individual has a > heavier > coat because of a mutation, it is better able to survive a chance > blizzard. Or if another individual has slightly sharper hearing, > better > vision, faster reflexes, etc. it is more likely to survive the chance > landslide. > Chance is the selector. As I understand evolution, the very first > > rule is: There is no "reason" involved. To illustrate: we do not have > eyes so we can see. We see because we have eyes which makes us more > likely to be successful (survive to reproductive age) than those who > do not have eyes. > > > > > > >We want there to be reasons for everything and hate to think that > something > >might simply not have a reason. And I have my doubts that a research > >project that concludes that a behavior doesn't have an adaptive > >significance would continue to get funded. Chance is an issue we > simply > >don't want to deal with. > > > > Except for theological reasons, why do you crave a reason? > And if chance is not dealt with, reality is not dealt with. > > > >Janice Willard DVM, MS > > > > > > > > -- > ^ ^ DBC (aka D.B. Cameron, DVM) > < \ / > Animal Behavior Clinic 440/826-0013 > ! ! 18250 Main Street Fx: 234-3407 > .. Middleburg Hts., OH 44130 From: IN%"Eva.Sondergaard@agrsci.dk" "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eva_S=F8ndergaard?=" 19-FEB-1999 08:18:58.44 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"horsesci@mail.usyd.edu.au" "'horsesci@mail.usyd.edu.au'" CC: Subj: Free-living horses Hello everybody, We are looking for a group of feral colts for a study of social = behaviour in bachelor groups. We would prefer a group in Europe and preferably = horses but ponies will do. If you know of such a group, please tell us. Best regards, Eva and Janne Eva S=F8ndergaard Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences Dep. of Animal Health and Welfare Research Center Foulum P.O. Box 50 DK-8830 Tjele Ph. +45 89 99 13 19 Fax +45 89 99 15 00 E-mail Eva.Sondergaard@agrsci.dk From: IN%"ragtuswa@eden.rutgers.edu" "Michael Toscano" 19-FEB-1999 08:28:31.50 To: IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "Deborah McWilliams" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Death of a canine conspecific --Boundary_(ID_0jzlxBU1DiNf6MS0yAFg+g) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Being a lowly undergraduate, my opinion is probably the least knowledgeable, but could the rat's response be due to the loss of that specific animal or could it be just the loss of a group mate. Rats do exist in groups so I could only imagine that being alone would be stressful after being with another for most of its life. mike toscano Deborah McWilliams wrote: > I raise rats and have several experiences (anecdotal) where a > companion of a cagemate died or was euthanized. Types of reactions > have been: > > 1) One female rat stopped eating and became recumbent. She was limp > if lifted and handled and her eyes appeared glazed over. A new > companion brought her to life and within an hour she was eating, > playing and grooming the new addition. > > 2) One female rat went into hiding and would not come out when her > sick companion was euthanized. A new addition brought her out and > she became her usual, sociable self. > > DebMcW > > dmcwilliams@aps.uoguelph.ca > > Deborah A. McWilliams > Room 043, Animal and Poultry Science > University of Guelph > Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2X7 --Boundary_(ID_0jzlxBU1DiNf6MS0yAFg+g) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit  

    Being a lowly undergraduate, my opinion is probably the least knowledgeable, but could the rat's response be due to the loss of that specific animal or could it be just the loss of a group mate. Rats do exist in groups so I could only imagine that being alone would be stressful after being with another for most of its life.

mike toscano

Deborah McWilliams wrote:

I raise rats and have several experiences (anecdotal) where a
companion of a cagemate died or was euthanized.  Types of reactions
have been:

1) One female rat stopped eating and became recumbent.  She was limp
if lifted and handled and her eyes appeared glazed over.  A new
companion brought her to life and within an hour she was eating,
playing and grooming the new addition.

2) One female rat went into hiding and would not come out when her
sick companion was euthanized.  A new addition brought her out and
she became her usual, sociable self.

DebMcW

dmcwilliams@aps.uoguelph.ca

Deborah A. McWilliams
Room 043, Animal and Poultry Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2X7

  --Boundary_(ID_0jzlxBU1DiNf6MS0yAFg+g)-- From: IN%"haussman@rs4703.ansc1.uni-hohenheim.de" "HANS HAUSSMANN" 19-FEB-1999 09:04:42.54 To: IN%"Eva.Sondergaard@agrsci.dk" "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eva_S=F8ndergaard?=" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"horsesci@mail.usyd.edu.au" "'horsesci@mail.usyd.edu.au'" Subj: RE: Free-living horses | Hello everybody, | We are looking for a group of feral colts for a study of social = | behaviour in | bachelor groups. We would prefer a group in Europe and preferably = | horses but | ponies will do. If you know of such a group, please tell us. | | Best regards, | | Eva and Janne I am also interested in such studies. Please forward answers to me if they don't go to the list. Recently I was told that there was a report on TV about feral horses in Sardinia. If you are interested I will try to find more informtion about them. Regards ___________________ Hans Haussmann haussman@uni-hohenheim.de ,--¬_ Dept. for Animal Husbandry and Animal Breeding ,;;,_ ____/ /|/ (Institut fuer Tierhaltung und Tierzuechtung) ;; ( )___, ) ' University of Hohenheim, Germany ,' // V\__ Fax + 49 711 459 4239 _ / \ / \ Fon + 49 711 459 2476 (3006) ¬ ¬ ' Home page www.uni-hohenheim.de/aw ___________________ Mail 470/NT, Uni Hohenheim, D-70593 Stuttgart From: IN%"chris.gotman@sympatico.ca" 19-FEB-1999 09:05:51.28 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: genetic death wish and behavior I wrote: "BUT... the interesting ramifications of built in obsolescence is what behavioral changes incur that speed-up an organism's demise." Well, I must have been real tired. (Yup, I was.) I can't make sense out of that sentence. What I meant to say was: BUT... the interesting ramifications of gene-controlled aging is what behaviors arise that help speed an organism's demise. I can't think of any at the moment. sincerely, Chris Gotman Quebec, Canada From: IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "Deborah McWilliams" 19-FEB-1999 09:50:21.27 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Death of a canine conspecific Hi Emily! > > Rats are definately very social, but with pairs, isolation stress may be > part of the cause of the abnormal behaviour. Rats can react badly to > isolation, especially if their previous experinece was more enriched. My observations have me convinced that they have strong social needs and should not be raised alone. DebMcW dmcwilliams@aps.uoguelph.ca Deborah A. McWilliams Room 043, Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2X7 From: IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "Deborah McWilliams" 19-FEB-1999 10:01:09.46 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Death of a canine conspecific Hi MIchael!! > > Being a lowly undergraduate, my opinion is probably the least > knowledgeable, but could the rat's response be due to the loss of that > specific animal or could it be just the loss of a group mate. Rats do > exist in groups so I could only imagine that being alone would be > stressful after being with another for most of its life. Lowly undergraduate opinions are welcome!! Good question. My opinion is that rats are a very social species and do better with at least one of their kind (and even better with more). For example, for years I had either males or females and found that they were more active, playful, sociable and healthier when with a conspecific than when by themselves. Now, I have breeding pairs and keep the babes with "mom and dad" until after weaning (one breeding pair has an "aunt" and the other breeding pair is alone). With the breeding pair with an "aunt", I see cooperative rearing of young, the mom's seem more relaxed and the dad is welcome to visit the babes although not stay. With the breeding pair without an aunt, mom is more vigilant, spends less time away from the babes and does not appear to allow dad to visit. Why do I think they do better with conspecifics? They can group and regroup for play, sleep, mutual grooming. They are more interested in their environment and more active. They appear to suffer less disease processes especially like obesity (and perhaps others). I would suspect that you are correct - by living in groups there is less negative stress (group living does, after all, offer some stress but maybe more of a positive nature assuming there are adequate resources and space for everyone). DebMcW dmcwilliams@aps.uoguelph.ca Deborah A. McWilliams Room 043, Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2X7 From: IN%"scrowell@calc.vet.uga.edu" "Sharon Crowell-Davis" 19-FEB-1999 10:10:12.09 To: IN%"haussman@rs4703.ansc1.uni-hohenheim.de" "HANS HAUSSMANN" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"horsesci@mail.usyd.edu.au" "'horsesci@mail.usyd.edu.au'" Subj: RE: Free-living horses There are feral horses on Cumberland Island, which is off the coast of Georgia (U.S.). The majority of the island is part of the National Park System, and the horses are protected. They are called "horses", but many are technically large ponies. Some reach true horse size. I suspect that chronic poor nutrition contributes to their size. While I and my students have studied these horses in previous years, I am not sure what the current status of bachelor groups is. Sharon Crowell-Davis > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 16:00:32 +0000 > From: HANS HAUSSMANN > Subject: Re: Free-living horses > To: Eva Sondergaard > Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca, > "'horsesci@mail.usyd.edu.au'" > | Hello everybody, > | We are looking for a group of feral colts for a study of social =3D > | behaviour in > | bachelor groups. We would prefer a group in Europe and preferably =3D > | horses but > | ponies will do. If you know of such a group, please tell us. > | > | Best regards, > | > | Eva and Janne > > > I am also interested in such studies. Please forward answers to me if th= ey > don't go to the list. > > Recently I was told that there was a report on TV about feral horses in > Sardinia. If you are interested I will try to find more informtion about > them. > > > Regards > ___________________ Hans Haussmann haussman@uni-hohenheim.de > ,--=AC_ Dept. for Animal Husbandry and Animal Breed= ing > ,;;,_ ____/ /|/ (Institut fuer Tierhaltung und Tierzuechtung) > ;; ( )___, ) ' University of Hohenheim, Germany > ,' // V\__ Fax + 49 711 459 4239 > _ / \ / \ Fon + 49 711 459 2476 (3006) > =AC =AC ' Home page www.uni-hohenheim.de/aw > ___________________ Mail 470/NT, Uni Hohenheim, D-70593 Stuttgar= t > > ********************************************** Sharon L. Crowell-Davis DVM, PhD Diplomate, American College of Veterinary Behaviorists College of Veterinary Medicine University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602 scrowell@calc.vet.uga.edu If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has so much as to be out of danger? T.H. Huxley On Elementary Instruction in Physiology From: IN%"Frank.Odberg@rug.ac.be" 19-FEB-1999 11:01:39.89 To: IN%"Eva.Sondergaard@agrsci.dk" "Eva S ndergaard" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Free-living horses In the 70-ties I filmed free-living ponies in the Bask country on the French side of the Pyrenees: the Pottokak (plural of Pottok). However, the sex-ratio was disturbed as stallions were culled. Maybe it's worth enquiring how the situation is now. Tell me if you're interested, I'll have to look up for addresses at home. The nearest village was Sare, near the mountain La Rhune. Heitor Rifa is studying the Asturcon in Asturia (Spain). Check his address on the web-site of the equine ethologists set up by George Waring: http://www.science.siu.edu/zoology/waring/equineresdir.html FO=D6 Prof.Dr.F.O.=D6dberg Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Department of Animal Nutrition, Genetics, Production and Ethology Heidestraat 19 B-9820 Merelbeke tel: +32-(0)9-2647804 fax: +32-(0)9-2647849 From: IN%"S.Gragert@t-online.de" 19-FEB-1999 13:53:08.99 To: IN%"cgaboury@total.net" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" Subj: RE: Cause of death Dear Chantal, just what I read about it, (although I feel like a cow talking about ice-skating (a German saying)) Chantal Gaboury schrieb: > > VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN wrote: > > > > At 11:14 PM 2/17/99 -0800, chris gotman wrote: > > > > > > If mortality was contingent on successfully reproducing, childless > > >couples would live forever. > > > > Would this mean that homosexuals would live forever?? > > > > Vivian > > just asking, > > heterosexual -- never gave birth -- two adopted children --- planning on > > living forever...... > > I was thinking about homosexutality, as well, with regards to this > discussion. > > Although I am not very up-to-date on whatever information is available, > as far as I know, there is somewhat of a debate on whether homosexuality > is a choice, or whether it is biologically determined (or perhaps > both?). Although there have been some differences found between the > biology of homosexual men and heterosexual men. (There is an area of the > brain that has been found to be different.) What is not know is whether > the men are homosexual because of this brain difference or whether the > brain changes due to the homosexuality. Eibl-Eibesfeld wrote in his biology of human behaviour (1995, German title: Biologie des menschlichen Verhaltens, I will try to put it into English) it was found, that some homosexual men have a partly female brain due to lack of androgenes in the embryonic period. When rats get too little testosteron during a critical embryonic period, their brain will become female. Those rats become homosexual when reaching sexual maturity. This can be induced by stressing the pregnant female rats. The suprarenal gland releases substances that reduce testosteron in the embryos. The author further says, that a higher than average percentage of the men born during the stressfull period of World war two was found to be homosexual. > > So what I was wondering, is if homosexuality is biologically determined, > how does this happen? > Heritability cannot explain the persistance of > this lifestyle since homosexuals do not (usually) reproduce. The same author wrote that research on twin brothers implies a genetic disposition for homosexuality. In homocygote twins in case one brother was homosexual the probability that his twin brother also is, was higher than in heterzygote twins or genetically non related adopted brothers.(52% to 22% to 11%). The fact that in 114 families of homosexuals the rate of homosexual males was much higher in uncles, nephews and so on on the mothers side than on the fathers, hints to a gentetic connection of a homosexual disposition to the X-chromosome. All this sounds logical enough to me, but I admit that I only read anything about the matter in this one book, so I do not know, whether the author shows a picture of what is known or a selection of research work that suits his opinion. If you are interested in the references the author named, I could send you a list, I just looked up some of them, most even are in English. Yours sincerely, Stephanie ------------------------------ Stephanie Gragert Kochstr. 59 04275 Leipzig Germany Tel/Fax 0049 314 3304368 From: IN%"poli@imiucca.csi.unimi.it" "Marco Poli" 19-FEB-1999 14:05:10.82 To: IN%"Eva.Sondergaard@agrsci.dk", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Free-living horses Dear Dr. Sondergaard, I'm replying to your message on behalf of a friend whose e.mail is currently disconnected. He has been studying for some years feral and semi-feral horses in the Appennine mountains in Central Italy; he tells me that some of the groups of animals have been living totally free for many years now. Should you be interested, he is willing to be contacted by you. His name is: Professor Venicio Perilli Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali (Environmental Sciences) Universit=E0 dell' Aquila 67100 L'Aquila - Italy =46ax + 39 0862 433205 I hope this will be of some help! Best regards Marco D. Poli >Hello everybody, >We are looking for a group of feral colts for a study of social behaviour i= n >bachelor groups. We would prefer a group in Europe and preferably horses bu= t >ponies will do. If you know of such a group, please tell us. > >Best regards, > >Eva and Janne > >Eva S=F8ndergaard >Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences >Dep. of Animal Health and Welfare >Research Center Foulum >P.O. Box 50 >DK-8830 Tjele >Ph. +45 89 99 13 19 >Fax +45 89 99 15 00 >E-mail Eva.Sondergaard@agrsci.dk From: IN%"JBrody@compuserve.com" "James F. Brody" 19-FEB-1999 18:23:01.45 To: IN%"paleopsych@kumo.com" "Paleopsych", IN%"hbe-l@a3.com" "INTERNET:hbe-l@a3.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: IN%"russellgardnerjr@yahoo.com" "Russ Gardner Jr", IN%"fentress@is.dal.ca" "John Fentress, Ph. D.", IN%"robin@coape.win-uk.net" "Robin Walker" Subj: Dave Evans Collaboration Colleagues, I thought you might enjoy the following, posted at http://forums.behavior.net/evolutionary. Jim Brody =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D "Remembering the Soos" David Allan Evans $5.95, Plains Press, 102 pp., 1986. Reviewed by James Brody I remember Gene Sheppard's talking at night over the radio when I was in college. He talked and he talked -- about himself and his adventures whe= n he traveled the corners and trails of America. I don't remember any particular story quite so much as the melody of his voice and my drifting= off to sleep to its cadence. Garrison Keillor had a similar niche in my life when he hosted "The Prairie HOME Companion" on public radio. = Keillor, like Shep, could start the most boring tale about life in rural Minnesota but massage, knead, and mold his yarn while 20 minutes evaporat= ed from my life. He built a possible world of creditable people and I want still to believe in their existence. I want to KNOW that the "Sidetrack= Tap" is open and that sick Norwegians really do lie exactly in the middle= of their bed, 90 degrees to the headboard, and without wrinkles to either= side. Dave Evans has a similar skill, he's just not on the radio. I can't skip= words and can't skim Dave's prose even if no one is getting raped, killed= , or eviscerated. You need to take it one word and one picture at a time while you hear Garrison or Shep read alongside of you. Each sentence sounds as if it were intended to be read out loud as Dave's father used t= o do for him and as Sheppard and Keillor did for me. Perhaps Dave writes while "hearing" his father. = "Remembering the Soos" is a collection of stories about childhood and ear= ly youth -- shagging balls outside the fence of a minor league baseball club= (The Sioux City Soos), peering through holes drilled in the wall of the ladies' room, first dates, climbing on roofs, the medieval rules of adolescent male fights -- all the sorts of story that I would like to tel= l and in the way that I would like to tell them. These are the high feelin= gs about real adventures that were possible before Hollywood and hyperbole eroded our appreciation for danger or beauty, pre-karate and pre-computer= adventures, honestly told. For example, George Lucas didn't exist but science fiction thrillers did and Dave once ran up the aisle to escape fr= om the auditorium during one loud scene from "The Thing," which was an awful= movie for kids. (My parents took 6 y.o. me to see it and parked me in th= e front row while they sat some distance to the rear. I had sleep disturbances and nightmares for better than a week afterwards!) I empathized with Dave and laughed at the same time. I found the book to be a wonderful escape from my other preoccupations. = The net effect was like hitting the alt-tab sequence on my keyboard and making a world of thought shift. Evolution, speciation, environmental crises, politics -- all blinked out as surely as does my monitor. For a moment, natural selection disappeared while I was reminded about real lif= e before I thought I knew so darned much. I often recommend to distressed= clients that they mentally -- and sometimes physically -- take themselves= to places and times that predate their crisis and they almost routinely a= nd immediately feel better. "Soos" had that effect on me. Back to Thoughts of Family Traits: "Each of us is all the sums he has not counted. Subtract us into nakednes= s and night again, and you shall see begin in Crete 4,000 years ago, a love= that ended yesterday in Texas.") Thomas Wolfe from the beginning of "Loo= k Homeward Angel" relayed to me by way of Dave Evans. = It's possible to see Dave as a mosaic of his parents even though he might= not have wanted to tell that particular story. His father, A. C. Evans, was not formally educated but was driven to write and did so through successively higher responsibilities on his labor union newspapers. Davi= d notes that his father read assiduously to himself and to his children, memorizing passages in order to quote from a wide array of authors. The man apparently loved English and its cadences; fortunately, his traits are still with us. I periodically send comments to David about one thing= or another in nature and -- like his father -- he always throws in a coup= le of quotes. A. C. once commented, "I have no education and five suits; a college professor has a good education and one suit." He also gave a cautionary note useful for evolutionary psychologists, "If you look hard enough, you could establish the case for Jack Dempsey having written the little poem: 'Ozymandias.'" A. C. was also embedded in the conflict that writers are the second poore= st but perhaps the most obsessive profession in America. "I seem to be a roaring success as a writer-editor of labor publications,= but I don't know: If I could find an opportunity open in bootlegging, wit= h a chance to accumulate a sizeable chunk of the green stuff the American people worship for god, I would take it. The struggle becomes difficult = at times." Genetics and social learning are both players in these two guys. I'm enchanted more by the biology but whatever the weave of causes, both guys= had/have the knack for spinning tales and swapping quotes. They caress language as if it were a she and they alone, by a slight move of cunning fingers, can make her giggle in church or moan on a pillow. On the other hand, Dave's mom perhaps shared Dave's stubborness; A.C. is= described as a moody fellow, inclined to give arbitrary directions and on= short notice. Dave sketches her as one day driving the family in their sedan and squealing tires on some corners. Dad told her to take him home= and clenched his fist towards her; she scowled and drove faster into the next series of turns! Dave remembers the fist relaxing before her scowl= did. Mom may be with him in other ways. Dave commented in later correspondence (quoted below) that he grew a beard because he, getting older, saw his father's face emerging. In our evolving outlooks about th= e origins of ourselves and our Self, do we say that "Dave didn't care for t= he growing likeness," or that "Traits of Dave's mom in Dave didn't care for it"? I further wonder if writers pay a special cost, that of living while watching themselves. It's as if they are never a full participant, that some watchful part of them holds back, takes notes, self evaluates, and stores impressions not only of their own thoughts but also of the spoken and postural sequences of the people around them. Even though Russ Barkley (ADHD and the Nature of Self Control) glorifies this ability as o= ur executive functions and a fabulous gift of evolution, this awareness carries the tag of holding back, of reining spontaneity, and superimposin= g your memories and your dreams of what might be on top of your now. Littl= e wonder that there's also sometimes a cast of despondency, of earlier maturity, of some pervasive sense of where our paths might lead from ever= y small choice that we make. Small wonder also that so many writers disinhibit themselves with alcohol, putting their body and their sense of= the future to rest. "Remembering the Soos" is a short book and ends abruptly. I'm sure he wi= ll finish it when he's ready. More of Dave Evans' life and his next book ar= e still in the typewriter. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D From: "Dave Evans" To: "James F. Brody" Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 06:18:39 -0600 Subject: Re: Soos Jim, I'm glad you liked the book. No problem with anything you want to say abo= ut it in print--I really do appreciate your comments. And I do have copies o= f the book left, and so does the publisher. You're right about my father looming large. I hadn't thought of that noti= on of speaking in my father's voice in my writings, at least in this book. I've been mostly a poet for all the years I've been writing; the prose books--both the essays, as in Soos, and a short story collection I'm tryi= ng to get published--have come sort of sandwiched between the poems over the= years. But I'm writing more prose, in fact I've got another collection of= essays, an extension of the Soos book, more or less, called LETTERS FROM = MY FATHER, that I'm also trying to find a publisher for, along with another collection of poems. = It's curious how so many images from my poetry and prose come out of my junior high years at WOODROW WILSON. My guess is that so much was happeni= ng to me--physically, physiologically, and in all ways during those early adolescent years, that they stuck in my memory. I do think that those yea= rs are formative ones--the way I got my status, as you no doubt figured out,= was through sports. Only later did the writing come in. And so many of my= images and stories and movements in both the poems and the prose are from= having been a jock. But anyway. You stuck a chord with your comments. I'll send you that story again, which you can't find. It's just a short story about how genes work in families--prompted by reading the opening pages of your book, which is now on the way to China, and which I'll read= when I get there. Again, I do appreciate your words. = Take care. I'll keep in touch from China, assuming I have an e-mail address, and I'll be back in early July. Enjoyed your articles in ASCAP. I'd like to have been at that conference with Wilson and deWaal and others. I hope I can one day meet Mr. Wilson,= or at least hear him talk live. I've been a Wilson fan for a long time. Dave E. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D From: "Thomas Henry Huxley" To: "James F. Brody" Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1999 06:18:39 -0600 Subject: Re: Family Similarities "Physically and mentally I am the son of my mother so completely -- even down to peculiar movements of my hands, which made their appearance = in me as I reached the age she had when I noticed them -- that I can find hardly any trace of my father in myself, except an inborn faculty for drawing, which unfortunately, in my case, has never been cultivated; a ho= t temper; and that amount of tenacity of purpose, which unfriendly observer= s sometimes call obstinancy. "My mother was a slender brunette, of an emotional and energetic temperament, and possessed of the most piercing black eyes I ever saw in = a woman's head. With no more education than other women of the middle class= es in her day, she had an excellent mental capacity. Her most distinguishin= g mental characteristic, however, was rapidity of thought. If one ventured= to suggest that she had not taken much time to arrive at any conclusion, she would say, 'I cannot help it, things flash across me.' That perculiarity has been passed on to me in full strength; it has often stoo= d me in good stead; it has sometimes played me sad tricks, and it has alway= s been a danger. But after all, if my time were to come over again, there = is nothing I would less willingly part with than my inheritance of mother wit." Thomas Henry Huxley, 1876, reprinted in Charles Darwin, T.H. Huxley Autobiographies. G. DeBeer (Ed.) Oxford, 1983. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Sender: evans@serv.brookings.net From: "Dave Evans" To: "James F. Brody" Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 06:59:17 -0600 Jim, That is a remarkable quote. Thanks for it. These likenesses can be revelatory, and they can also be a little spooky. They are there, in abundance, and maybe people don't tend to dwell on them because the trait= s remind them of their mortality. One reason--the main reason, in fact--I wear a beard is that, growing older and looking into mirrors, I began to see my father's face. And then too--as you pointed out from my book--ther= e are so many other traits we had in common. = I remember a story--a true story, I think--maybe you heard it too, aout a= young man who is a mountain climber, and whose father, also a mountain climber, had evidently died while climbing, and had been missing for year= s. The son, at about the age of the father when he disappeared on the mountain, goes up the same mountain in an expedition. Eventually, trying = to retrace his father's steps, he actually finds his father, frozen in the i= ce in a crevace, all those years. And so both father and son are the same ag= e, one dead, one living! And do you remember that scene in FIELD OF DREAMS when Costner, the son, = is playing catch with his father, at the same age, since he has come back fr= om the dead? It still makes me cry to see it. There has to be something very= deep going on in that sequence, at the end of the movie. It got to me, anyway, and to many other men I've talked to who also saw it. So I believe you are onto something really interesting and important in your observations and writings. And I haven't seen anybody explore it qui= te as extensively as you. = Take care. Off tomorrow afternoon for Shanghai! = Dave From: IN%"emily.patterson-kane@vuw.ac.nz" "Emily G Patterson-Kane" 19-FEB-1999 20:01:41.40 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Death of a canine conspecific > I would suspect that you are correct - by living in groups >there is less negative stress (group living does, after all, offer >some stress but maybe more of a positive nature assuming there are >adequate resources and space for everyone). There is plenty of evidence about rats' needs for social contact (reveiwed Renner and Rosenzweig, 1987). My own data shows that rats show preference and economic demand for social contact, health data suggests an optimal group size of 3-5 (Lawlor 1989). I think frequent human handling can compensate for social contact to some extent - it certainly reduces fearfulness. E From: IN%"tstawar@bigfoot.com" 19-FEB-1999 20:23:36.51 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Death of a canine Dear Collegues, After Dr. Crowell-Davis's facinating observation, I still wonder if the searching behavior reported by owners of dogs who lose a companion dog is all that common and if sniffing and seeing the corpse inhibits that behavior to any degree? Anyone else have any experience with this. Also any opinions as to whether the existence of a sexual relationship between the animals is significant in the strength of attachement or bereavement that follows? Recently I've been reading psychoanalyst Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson's book, When Elephants Weep, which gives a lot of antedotal evidence for animal sensibilities such as grief, fear, greed, altrusism, etc. He describes a bonded pair of huskies in which the male dies and the female has what appears to be a full blown breavement period. Since we are talking about animal analogues of human emotional states please allow a digression (more of a frolicking detour): In Stanley Milgram's classic experiments at Yale. He had experimenters order subjects to commit an aggressive antisocial act and found that fully 65% of his human subjects were ready to follow through to the bitter end. I wrote to him before he passed away and asked if there were any animal models for this sort of behavior. For example how much would an animal hurt another animal for a reward (obedience to reinforcement?). Would a rat shock its mother or child for a food pellet? Would a mouse burn a cat? Would a hampster kill a rat? How far would they go? And what about dominance-- would a less dominate animal learn to shock a dominant one? Could an animal learn to use artifical weapons (like pressing a bar which delivers a shock to a rival) to change dominance relationships? (This was another disseration topic that never materialized.) Milgram referred me to some of Albert Bandura's work but it didn't seem to apply. I found only two related articles at the time. One showed that shock to a conspecific in rhesus monkeys served as a punisher and another showed that rats would quickly learn to press levers that rescued other rats from distressing situations (turn off a grid or lowering a rat suspended from a rope upside down. The article was on "altruism" in the rat. It appeared that the sight, sound, smell , etc. of distress in another animal was punishing or adversive and some animals would be negativley reinforced for learning a behavior to terminate this noxious stimui. Perhaps that is an operational definition of altruism? Any opinions or references?? Terry Terry L. Stawar, Ed.D., LSP, DABPS Clinical Director Peace River Center 1745 Highway 17, South Bartow, FL 33830 tstawar@bigfoot.com From: IN%"dirk.lebelt@t-online.de" 21-FEB-1999 07:45:56.54 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Edinburgh Foodball Dear all, I am looking for a supplier of a foraging device called "Edingburgh Foodball" described by Henderson et al., 1996 (ISAE Proseedings) to reduce equine stereotypic behaviour. As far as I know the device is commercially available in the UK as "Equiball". Can anyone help ? Best regards Dirk Dr. Dirk Lebelt Veterinary Clinic Wahlstedt Wiesenweg 2-8 23812 Wahlstedt Germany eMail: dirk.lebelt@t-online.de From: IN%"J.Durrell@Queens-Belfast.ac.uk" 22-FEB-1999 09:48:20.00 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Stockmen? Does anyone know of what the politically correct alternatives to 'stockman' and 'stockmanship' are? Obviously, there is 'stockperson'. However, 'stockpersonship' seems a bit cumbersome. In addition, the term 'stockperson' still suggests animals to be inanimate/unfeeling objects (i.e. 'stock') rather than sentient beings. Any ideas? Julie Durrell School of Psychology, Queen's University of Belfast From: IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "Deborah McWilliams" 22-FEB-1999 10:29:32.15 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Stockmen? Hi Julie! How about: 1) husbandry specialist 2) animal caretaker DebMcW > Date sent: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:36:02 +0000 > From: J.Durrell@Queens-Belfast.ac.uk > Subject: Stockmen? > To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Does anyone know of what the politically correct alternatives to > 'stockman' and 'stockmanship' are? Obviously, there is 'stockperson'. > However, 'stockpersonship' seems a bit cumbersome. In addition, the > term 'stockperson' still suggests animals to be inanimate/unfeeling > objects (i.e. 'stock') rather than sentient beings. Any ideas? > > Julie Durrell > School of Psychology, Queen's University of Belfast > > dmcwilliams@aps.uoguelph.ca Deborah A. McWilliams Room 043, Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2X7 From: IN%"robin@coape.win-uk.net" "Robin Walker" 22-FEB-1999 10:52:19.75 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network (E-mail)" CC: Subj: What is wrong with herdsman? The feminine terms milkmaid or shepherdess have long pedigrees. What are you looking for? How about "Noble ungulate comrade superintendent" How about 'stockman'? My stepfather rejoiced in the title 'headherdsman' and my mother styled herself 'dairymaid'. The cows' opinion was (as I recall) - Moo! Robin Robin E Walker B.Vet.Med. M.R.C.V.S. The Veterinary Clinic 78 Bromyard Road Worcester WR2 5DA Tel (++44 (0)1905 421296 Fax ++44 (0)1905 422287 Centre of Applied Pet Ethology Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors From: IN%"arl3342@montana.com" "peggy shunick" 22-FEB-1999 11:18:55.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"J.Durrell@Queens-Belfast.ac.uk" Subj: RE: Stockmen? Julie, ...wish I knew the politically correct answer to your question. With a big grin, I have referred to my Border Collie as the Ovine Resource Manager. :-> Peggy At 03:36 PM 2/22/99 +0000, you wrote: >Does anyone know of what the politically correct alternatives to >'stockman' and 'stockmanship' are? Obviously, there is 'stockperson'. >However, 'stockpersonship' seems a bit cumbersome. In addition, the >term 'stockperson' still suggests animals to be inanimate/unfeeling >objects (i.e. 'stock') rather than sentient beings. Any ideas? > >Julie Durrell >School of Psychology, Queen's University of Belfast > > Margaret A. (Peggy) Shunick BA, BA, MS (Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy) PO Box 844 Arlee MT 59821-0844 USA 406-726-3342 arl3342@montana.com From: IN%"scrowell@calc.vet.uga.edu" "Sharon Crowell-Davis" 22-FEB-1999 11:41:49.34 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: stockperson I wonder if whether or not a word seems "cumbersome" is more relative than real. Stockperson has one more syllable than Stockman. However, there are a lot of three-syllable words we use routinely without considering them cumbersome, e.g. professor, physician, physicist (or go for 4 syllables with astronomer). On a recent visit to the UGA dairy, I heard the term "stockperson" used multiple times to refer to both the male and female persons who take care of the cattle. It came across as the routine designation that everyone was comfortable with. No one ever said stockman (or stocklady :--) Sharon Crowell-Davis ********************************************** Sharon L. Crowell-Davis DVM, PhD Diplomate, American College of Veterinary Behaviorists College of Veterinary Medicine University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602 scrowell@calc.vet.uga.edu If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has so much as to be out of danger? T.H. Huxley On Elementary Instruction in Physiology From: IN%"JBrody@compuserve.com" "James F. Brody" 22-FEB-1999 13:34:40.57 To: IN%"hbe-l@a3.com" "INTERNET:hbe-l@a3.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology", IN%"darwin-and-darwinism-request@sheffield.ac.uk" "Darwin List_Serve" CC: IN%"HowlBloom@aol.com", IN%"bbenzon@meta4inc.com", IN%"geistvr@cedar.alberni.net", IN%"paleopsych@paleopsych.org" Subj: RE: sociobiology and ethics--from Michael Gregory Message text written by INTERNET:hbe-l@a3.com (Wolfson) >And I cannot help but reiterate in this context that those who continue to argue for a merger between science and morals on any basis - the esteemed E.O. Wilson included - must be prepared to accept the legitimacy of arguments like Gregory's as part of the dues.< Kelly remarked that sociobiology is a trap and not a "tool" if we "allow = it to be." = The information available from a sociobiology may help us to avoid "traps= " but only by also avoiding the antecedent conditions that spring them closed. Ignorance about epigenetic effects -- the interaction of genetic= possibilities and environmental options -- means that our genes WILL run = us as they have done in the past. In some respects this means understanding= our "nature" so that we can manipulate our "nurture" to get whatever "bes= t" we seek and for whatever people, whatever planet, and for whatever future= s. Denial, oppositionality -- in themselves -- may reflect both liabililti= es and opportunities conferred by epigenetic phenomena. If you want to be i= n the back seat of the car, then continue to blindfold yourself. = (Gosh, it's a lot of work to keep my DQ [dogmatism quotient] down! But, = as Stu Kauffman reminds us, the narrow zone of "maybe" that operates between= dogmatism and confusion, that is reflected by "maybe," "perhaps," and "possibly," is the playground for natural selection, for principles of reinforcement, and for human choice.) Jim Brody Clinical Sociobiology: Darwinian Feelings and Values A Continuation of Clinical Sociobiology: Taking Charge of Our Genes John Price MD, Russell Gardner, MD, John Fentress PhD, James Brody PhD 20th Cape Cod Institute July 19-23, 1999 www.cape.org/1999/ From: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" 22-FEB-1999 15:31:36.76 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: stockperson I suppose it depends on what part of the country you are in as well. I've lived most of my life in Idaho and right at the moment am living in Nevada, which is definitely the wild West with wild horses and cattle ranches and all. I suspect that if I used the term "stockperson" around any of the folks around here that they would laugh themselves silly. I've met some pretty capable ranchers who are women. The ones who were employed as managers were called managers or ranch managers. I've met some pretty capable shepherds who were women, although around here it is more common for them to be called sheep ranchers. Then there are ranch hands and one can't forget the ranch dog. If a person is working in a stockyard moving livestock around, you are a cowboy, whether you are male or female. The term refers to the job not the person. Up North where I usually live, there isn't as much grazing country so there we have farm hands, farm managers and one must not forget the farm dog. I've met farmers who are women, however, before mechanization, the designation of farm wife was not a demeaning one as she had some very specific and essential duties. If you want a gender and cultural neutral term, how about 'caretaker' as Deborah suggested? I can see the problem with live-stock as, if I remember right, stocks are those things that you store for later use. The flour and the sugar are your stocks in the pantry and the pig out back is livestock because you aren't ready to eat him yet. At least that is my understanding of the genesis of the term. However, there is a lot of cultural tradition to this term and I'm not really sure it is worth the effort to try to change. > >I wonder if whether or not a word seems "cumbersome" is more >relative than real. Stockperson has one more syllable than Stockman. > However, there are a lot of three-syllable words we use routinely >without considering them cumbersome, e.g. professor, physician, >physicist (or go for 4 syllables with astronomer). On a recent visit >to the UGA dairy, I heard the term "stockperson" used multiple times >to refer to both the male and female persons who take care of the >cattle. It came across as the routine designation that everyone was >comfortable with. No one ever said stockman (or stocklady :--) > >Sharon Crowell-Davis >********************************************** >Sharon L. Crowell-Davis DVM, PhD >Diplomate, American College of Veterinary Behaviorists >College of Veterinary Medicine >University of Georgia >Athens, Georgia 30602 >scrowell@calc.vet.uga.edu > > >If a little knowledge is dangerous, >where is the man who has so much >as to be out of danger? > >T.H. Huxley >On Elementary Instruction in Physiology > From: IN%"Aline-Marie.Wauters@univ-rennes1.fr" "Aline-Marie Wauters" 23-FEB-1999 04:34:29.99 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: human voice, human emotivity Dear all, I am looking for references on the influence of human voice on domestic animals and I am wondering if some scientific measures indicating animal's estimation of human emotivity exist. Best regards. Aline-Marie Melle Aline-Marie WAUTERS UMR 6552 - Ethologie, Evolution, Ecologie Bât. 25, Campus de Beaulieu Av. Gén. Leclerc F- 35042 RENNES Cedex Aline-Marie.Wauters@univ-rennes1.fr From: IN%"loo@las.vet.uu.nl" "Pascalle van Loo" 23-FEB-1999 06:18:05.25 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Stockmen? Hi Julie, What about: 'animal caretaker'? Or, if you want to be more specific 'farm animal caretaker', or 'laboratory animal caretaker' etc.. I do not know how 'stockmanship' would be translated in these terms. Cheers, Pascalle ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Department of Laboratory Animal Science Utrecht University P.O. Box 80.166 3508 TD UTRECHT The Netherlands Tel: ** 00 31 30 2532033 Fax: ** 00 31 30 2537997 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From: IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "Deborah McWilliams" 23-FEB-1999 10:02:39.27 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: human voice, human emotivity Hello Aline-Marie! Harold Gonyou and associates have done a lot of work on the personal attributes of those who work successfully with animals. DebMcW > Date sent: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:46:15 +0200 > From: Aline-Marie Wauters > Subject: human voice, human emotivity > To: Applied-ethology@usask.ca > Dear all, > > I am looking for references on the influence of human voice on domestic > animals and I am wondering if some scientific measures indicating animal= 's > estimation of human emotivity exist. > Best regards. > > Aline-Marie > > > > > > > Melle Aline-Marie WAUTERS > UMR 6552 - Ethologie, Evolution, Ecologie > B=E2t. 25, Campus de Beaulieu > Av. G=E9n. Leclerc > F- 35042 RENNES Cedex > > Aline-Marie.Wauters@univ-rennes1.fr > > > > dmcwilliams@aps.uoguelph.ca Deborah A. McWilliams Room 043, Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2X7 From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 23-FEB-1999 10:30:57.78 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" CC: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Fainting goats Dear All, A couple of years ago a summer student of mine was handed a video camera and told to make video recordings of as many different behaviours of animals as he could during his spare time so we could use them for class material. One of the behaviours he captured includes footage of a fainting goat doing his 'fainting-goat' routine. Basically the owner scares the goat to the point it lapses into a fainting spell, falls over, quivers and takes awhile to recover. I am not exactly sure of the physiological events that lead up to fainting, but scaring the animal with loud noises helps set the process in motion. The more I think of this anomaly the more I believe selection for this trait seems cruel. Though I must admit I have not spent much time thinking about it, but I do wonder if they suffer during or before the fainting spell. Anyway, I wonder if this condition is present throughout the world of goat keepers or if other countries would not allow such selection. Any fainting goat experts out there? Is it cruel to select for such a condition? At what point is selecting for abnormality, cruel? (Sounds like a good exam question.) Let me know if you are aware of any attempts to prevent the breeding of fainting goats. Joe ------------------------------ Joseph M. Stookey Department of Herd Medicine and Theriogenology Western College of Veterinary Medicine University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5B4 From: IN%"smillman@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "Suzanne Millman" 23-FEB-1999 11:02:31.75 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Fainting goats Hi Joe, As I understand it, fainting goats are of a specific meat breed. The fainting is considered a problem and not bred for, but as the goats are such good meat stock they are still selected. Makes me think it may be similar to Porcine Stress Syndrome in pigs, but this is only speculation. It would be interesting to know more. Cheers, Suzanne Millman Date sent: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:29:54 -0600 (CST) From: joseph.stookey@usask.ca Subject: Fainting goats To: applied-ethology Copies to: STOOKEY@skyway.usask.ca Dear All, A couple of years ago a summer student of mine was handed a video camera and told to make video recordings of as many different behaviours of animals as he could during his spare time so we could use them for class material. One of the behaviours he captured includes footage of a fainting goat doing his 'fainting-goat' routine. Basically the owner scares the goat to the point it lapses into a fainting spell, falls over, quivers and takes awhile to recover. I am not exactly sure of the physiological events that lead up to fainting, but scaring the animal with loud noises helps set the process in motion. The more I think of this anomaly the more I believe selection for this trait seems cruel. Though I must admit I have not spent much time thinking about it, but I do wonder if they suffer during or before the fainting spell. Anyway, I wonder if this condition is present throughout the world of goat keepers or if other countries would not allow such selection. Any fainting goat experts out there? Is it cruel to select for such a condition? At what point is selecting for abnormality, cruel? (Sounds like a good exam question.) Let me know if you are aware of any attempts to prevent the breeding of fainting goats. Joe ------------------------------ Joseph M. Stookey Department of Herd Medicine and Theriogenology Western College of Veterinary Medicine University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5B4 Suzanne Millman Dept. of Animal & Poultry Science University of Guelph Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 Canada. EMAIL: smillman@aps.uoguelph.ca PHONE: (519) 824-4120 X6226 FAX: (519)836-9873 From: IN%"mappleby@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 23-FEB-1999 11:03:07.27 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology", IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" CC: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Fainting goats Dear Joe, Forgive my ignorance, but I have never heard of fainting goats. You imply that this is a regular phenomenon - that people regularly select for and exhibit fainting in goats. Could you - or someone else - give me some background? Mike Michael Appleby Dr M.C. Appleby Director of Postgraduate Studies in Agriculture & Resource Economics Institute of Ecology and Resource Management University of Edinburgh West Mains Road Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK Tel. +44 131 535 4098 Fax. +44 131 667 2601 Email mappleby@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk or michael.appleby@ed.ac.uk From: IN%"JDohner@aol.com" 23-FEB-1999 11:32:18.42 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: fainting goats Fainting goats are included in my upcoming book from Yale, Rare on the Farm; Endangered and Historic Breeds of Livestock. These goats have a condition called congenital myotonia or Thomsen's Disease in humans. This is a neuromuscular disorder caused by a recessive gene . When an afflicted goats is startled, its heart rate increases and its muscles contract and become rigid. The goat does not lose consciousness and recovers in a few minutes although it may move stiffly for a short while in the hind end. The goats appear anxious but not in pain. Myotonia seems to prevent goats from jumping very well (keeps them in pastures) but make them more vulnerable to predator attacks. Some owners kept fainters as a sacrificial decoy to protect more valuable sheep. Fainters can be more heavily muscled in the loin and rear quarter, making them an excellent meat producer. Mostly they were kept as a curiousity. The original type is recognized as an endangered breed by the ALBC. I have historical information if anyone is interested. There are also various breed associations, some more reputable than others. Jan Dohner JDohner@aol.com From: IN%"ilsmith@utkux.utcc.utk.edu" "Ione Smith" 23-FEB-1999 12:21:59.01 To: IN%"mappleby@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology", IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca", IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Fainting goats On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Mike Appleby wrote: >Dear Joe, > >Forgive my ignorance, but I have never heard of fainting goats. You >imply that this is a regular phenomenon - that people regularly >select for and exhibit fainting in goats. Could you - or someone >else - give me some background? I'm afraid I don't have any good background for ya, but I've even seen "fainting goats" advertised for sale in the paper. They're a fad of sorts. Ione -- Ione L. Smith, DVM -- Department of Comparative Medicine -- -- University of Tennessee, College of Veterinary Medicine -- ================================================== http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~ilsmith/SVME.html The Society for Veterinary Medical Ethics http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~ilsmith/ethics.html for all sides of the AR/AW/anti-AR debate ================================================== Non Impediti Ratione Cogitationis From: IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "Deborah McWilliams" 23-FEB-1999 12:25:55.31 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Fainting goats Hi Joseph! What about "isn't it cruel" to scare the goat to the point of fainting (whether the "trait" is of genetic origin or idiopathic)? DebMcW > Date sent: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:29:54 -0600 (CST) > From: joseph.stookey@usask.ca > Subject: Fainting goats > To: applied-ethology > Copies to: STOOKEY@skyway.usask.ca > Dear All, > > A couple of years ago a summer student of mine was handed a video camera > and told to make video recordings of as many different behaviours of > animals as he could during his spare time so we could use them for class > material. One of the behaviours he captured includes footage of a fainting > goat doing his 'fainting-goat' routine. Basically the owner scares the > goat to the point it lapses into a fainting spell, falls over, quivers and > takes awhile to recover. I am not exactly sure of the physiological events > that lead up to fainting, but scaring the animal with loud noises helps > set the process in motion. The more I think of this anomaly the more > I believe selection for this trait seems cruel. Though I must admit I have > not spent much time thinking about it, but I do wonder if they suffer > during or before the fainting spell. Anyway, I wonder if this condition > is present throughout the world of goat keepers or if other countries > would not allow such selection. > > Any fainting goat experts out there? Is it cruel to select for such a > condition? At what point is selecting for abnormality, cruel? (Sounds > like a good exam question.) > > Let me know if you are aware of any attempts to prevent the breeding of > fainting goats. > > Joe > ------------------------------ > Joseph M. Stookey > Department of Herd Medicine and Theriogenology > Western College of Veterinary Medicine > University of Saskatchewan > Saskatoon, Saskatchewan > S7N 5B4 > > dmcwilliams@aps.uoguelph.ca Deborah A. McWilliams Room 043, Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2X7 From: IN%"bregman@interactive.net" "VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN" 23-FEB-1999 12:37:54.84 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Fainting goats At 10:29 AM 2/23/99 -0600, you wrote: > >Any fainting goat experts out there? Is it cruel to select for such a >condition? At what point is selecting for abnormality, cruel? (Sounds >like a good exam question.) > >Let me know if you are aware of any attempts to prevent the breeding of >fainting goats. > >Joe Joe I know that there was a discussion recently about someone who was breeding cats who had severely shortened forelegs. The forelegs were half the size of normal, while the rest of the cat was normal sized. It started as a mutation and the breeder kept breeding them. The discussion was on one of the many lists that I am on and the point was made by some that it was cruel to keep breeding these mutants. Many people, however, said that it was no more cruel than breeding dogs who cannot free whelp, or who cannot breathe without wheezing, etc. Cruelty seems to be in the eye of the beholder. I've been told that I am cruel because I eat veal (Love that veal.) while complaining about people who keep their dogs in crates all day. Vivian Vivian Bregman -- dog trainer for forty years -- interested in everything to do with science, especially Biology --- bregman@interactive.net From: IN%"dreyn@sirius.com" 23-FEB-1999 14:09:16.16 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-Ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Fainting goats Ione Smith wrote: > I've even seen > "fainting goats" advertised for sale in the paper. They're a fad of sorts. Ione - So the popularity of the fad is due to the fact that the animal can be easily frightened into a collapse ??? Cruel ? - Duh-Uh!! Sheesh - the human animal never ceases to amaze. -Donna Reynolds From: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" 23-FEB-1999 16:58:04.62 To: IN%"JDohner@aol.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: fainting goats At 12:18 PM 2/23/99 -0500, you wrote: So from your description, the goats are alert and aware when they are immobilized by the myotonia. So that would mean that, if they are attacked by a predator, they would be aware but unable to get away when they are being bitten and chewed on. And since they are not struggling, the predator would not have to choke them down to unconsciousness--as predictors like coyotes often do-- before beginning ingesting them. And those people who use them as sacrificial decoys are setting them up for this kind of a death. As rational as I am trying to be, that still sounds pretty awful. Janice Willard >Fainting goats are included in my upcoming book from Yale, Rare on the Farm; >Endangered and Historic Breeds of Livestock. > >These goats have a condition called congenital myotonia or Thomsen's Disease >in humans. This is a neuromuscular disorder caused by a recessive gene . >When an afflicted goats is startled, its heart rate increases and its muscles >contract and become rigid. The goat does not lose consciousness and recovers >in a few minutes although it may move stiffly for a short while in the hind >end. The goats appear anxious but not in pain. > >Myotonia seems to prevent goats from jumping very well (keeps them in >pastures) but make them more vulnerable to predator attacks. Some owners kept >fainters as a sacrificial decoy to protect more valuable sheep. Fainters can >be more heavily muscled in the loin and rear quarter, making them an excellent >meat producer. Mostly they were kept as a curiousity. > >The original type is recognized as an endangered breed by the ALBC. I have >historical information if anyone is interested. There are also various breed >associations, some more reputable than others. >Jan Dohner >JDohner@aol.com > From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 23-FEB-1999 17:20:56.29 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" CC: IN%"stookey@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Fainting goats (Stricklin response) Dear All, Ray Stricklin is still having problems posting to the applied-ethology servers so he asked me to forward this message onto the group. Joe -------------------------------------- Dear All, About ten years ago I was invited to be the dinner speaker for the Tennessee Fainting Goat Association, who were meeting jointly that year with the American Pygmy Goat Association. (Actually, I believe it was the Pygmy Goat group that were the majority and the ones who invited me. Pygmy goats are apparently kept either by hobbyists or else by suppliers to biomedical research institutions.) There were probably 100 people in attendance. I don't know how many owned fainting goats. The topic that I had been asked to address was general animal welfare - as I recall. In preparation for the talk I did a bit of background checking. The name "Tennessee" is attached to the goats because many, if not all, of the goats today genetically trace back to that state. I found a paper by Jay L. Lush (who was basically the founder of animal breeding in the states and professor at Iowa State University). In the paper Lush was working with a population of goats in Texas that he had identified as originating from Tennessee. Lush determined that the trait was a homozygous recessive and as I recall he speculated about the adaptive significance of the trait - which is typically reported to be a predator aversion behavior. The goats that "faint" are passed over the predator who continues to chase the ones that run away. This paper was published in 1930' or 1940's, and I believe it was in the Journal of Heredity. At the Tennessee Fainting Goat banquet I attended, I learned that persons _do select_ goats for their fainting behavior. They also give exhibitions at county fairs, etc. Of the persons that I talked with who owned fainting goats, the majority were young and female - probably high school age. Of the persons I talked with the major were from New York and New England states. During my presentation to the group I did raise the question of how appropriate was it to artificially select for the trait. As I recall their responses tended to follow the theme that this was a "naturally occurring trait." I also raised the question of how appropriate was it to place on exhibit an animal that "faints" when startled. As I remember their answers they contended that the goats were well cared, didn't show any signs of suffering, had not had anyone complain about their activities, etc. I have not kept contact with anyone in the group. I did a quick search and found several sites on the web. I have no direct knowledge of any of the groups or information they present. The address listed for the American Tennesee Fainting Goat Association (which has a Maine mailing address!) is presented below: http://www.webworksltd.com/webpub/goats/faintinggoat.html I also found an address for an Internation Fainting Goat Assocation (based in Iowa) at: http://www.wyodesigns.com/ifga/members.htm ---------------------- W. Ray Stricklin University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 Email:ws31@umail.umd.edu (ws31) Phone: 301-405-1382 From: IN%"ilsmith@utkux.utcc.utk.edu" "Ione Smith" 23-FEB-1999 19:33:01.10 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" Subj: RE: Fainting goats (Stricklin response) On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 joseph.stookey@usask.ca wrote: >The name "Tennessee" is attached to the goats because many, if not >all, of the goats today genetically trace back to that state. Ah-hah, that explains why I would have seen em in the paper. I'm in Knoxville, and grew up in Nashville! Ione -- Ione L. Smith, DVM -- Department of Comparative Medicine -- -- University of Tennessee, College of Veterinary Medicine -- ================================================== http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~ilsmith/SVME.html The Society for Veterinary Medical Ethics http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~ilsmith/ethics.html for all sides of the AR/AW/anti-AR debate ================================================== Non Impediti Ratione Cogitationis From: IN%"coosacats@anniston.net" "Wanda Esponge" 23-FEB-1999 21:45:55.72 To: IN%"bregman@interactive.net" "VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Fainting goats Hi, I am a cat breeder who has been lurking here (very interesting!) and just had to comment on the mention of cats. I think the cats referred to are what are called "Twisty Kats." These cats are deformed, having all or part of a forearm bone missing. There is a great deal of pressure, both political and privately by cat breeding associations, to stop this woman from breeding. However, you might also be referring to Munchkins, a breed of cats that suffers from dwarfism. All four legs suffer from shortening of the long bones. Although this is a somewhat-accepted breed, it is also very controversial at this time. (I suppose I shouldn't use the word 'suffer', as there is no evidence that the Munchkins do). Just thought you'd like the info. Wanda Esponge Coosacats Bengals ---------- > From: VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN > To: applied-ethology > Subject: Re: Fainting goats > Date: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 12:35 PM > > At 10:29 AM 2/23/99 -0600, you wrote: > > > >Any fainting goat experts out there? Is it cruel to select for such a > >condition? At what point is selecting for abnormality, cruel? (Sounds > >like a good exam question.) > > > >Let me know if you are aware of any attempts to prevent the breeding of > >fainting goats. > > > >Joe > > Joe > I know that there was a discussion recently about someone who was breeding > cats who had severely shortened forelegs. The forelegs were half the size > of normal, while the rest of the cat was normal sized. It started as a > mutation and the breeder kept breeding them. The discussion was on one of > the many lists that I am on and the point was made by some that it was > cruel to keep breeding these mutants. Many people, however, said that it > was no more cruel than breeding dogs who cannot free whelp, or who cannot > breathe without wheezing, etc. > > Cruelty seems to be in the eye of the beholder. > I've been told that I am cruel because I eat veal (Love that veal.) while > complaining about people who keep their dogs in crates all day. > > Vivian > > > > > Vivian Bregman -- dog trainer for forty years -- > interested in everything to do with science, > especially Biology --- bregman@interactive.net From: IN%"bregman@interactive.net" "VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN" 24-FEB-1999 06:30:08.79 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" CC: Subj: Was: Fainting goats IS: Twisty Cats At 09:47 PM 2/23/99 -0600, Wanda Esponge wrote: >Hi, > >I am a cat breeder who has been lurking here (very interesting!) and just >had to comment on the mention of cats. I think the cats referred to are >what are called "Twisty Kats." These cats are deformed, having all or part >of a forearm bone missing. There is a great deal of pressure, both >political and privately by cat breeding associations, to stop this woman >from breeding. > >However, you might also be referring to Munchkins, a breed of cats that >suffers from dwarfism. All four legs suffer from shortening of the long >bones. Although this is a somewhat-accepted breed, it is also very >controversial at this time. (I suppose I shouldn't use the word 'suffer', >as there is no evidence that the Munchkins do). > >Just thought you'd like the info. > >Wanda Esponge I was -- as you surmised -- referring to the Twisty Cats. The Munchkins at least have all four legs the same length, like Doxies, or Corgis. Vivian Vivian Bregman -- dog trainer for forty years -- interested in everything to do with science, especially Biology --- bregman@interactive.net From: IN%"ws31@umail.umd.edu" 24-FEB-1999 08:28:17.35 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: More Fainting Goats Dear All, I found an additional site on Fainting Goats that I thought was of=20 interest. Apparently the "Tennessee" goats are rather actively being=20 used in breeding programs supported by one or more universities to=20 develop meat-type goats (because of the greater muscling). The home=20 page for the Meat Goat Program is at: http://www.vsu.edu/goat/goat.html By following the link to Abstracts and Publications, one can access=20 several rather interesting articles related to the breeding of goats=20 for meat production - with several of the articles dealing with the=20 Fainting Goats. Gibson (http://www.vsu.edu/goat/mdmgs.html)states that: The Myotonic goat is known by many different names depending on the=20 region where it is raised. Other names include "Tennessee=20 Wooden-leg", "Tennessee Stiff-leg", "Nervous Goat", =93Fall-Down Goat=94,= =20 "Scare Goat" and "Fainting Goat". =20 In a second article Gibson (http://www.vsu.edu/goat/mdmgs.html)=20 writes: =93Fainting=94 is considered a management nuisance by producers because=20 it exposes the goats to predator risk. When these goats are startled,=20 they experience transitory muscle stiffness causing extension of hind=20 limbs and neck. If unbalanced in this startled state, the animal will=20 topple over or will stand immobile until the attack passes. These=20 =93fainting=94 attacks usually last only 10-20 seconds. The degree to=20 which myotonia and muscularity are related is not known. Therefore,=20 it is not known if selecting against myotonia will affect=20 muscularity. (end quote) Just a comment on the predator question. Above and elsewhere there=20 are references to the increased predator risk associated with the=20 trait - even references to persons using the fainting goats as=20 "sacrificial animals" for predators attacking sheep. The tonic=20 state in animals is generally reported to be an adaptive strategy for=20 _predator aversion_. Therefore, Fainting Goats should be more, not=20 less, likely to survive a predator attack - when in a flock or herd=20 of animals.=20 A predator would be expected to be more likely to take down an animal=20 that continues to flee - not stop to eat an animal that appears to be=20 dead. Therefore, I don't buy the argument that the use of Fainting=20 Goats would result in decreased predation on sheep. In fact, I think=20 that if one established a group and then allowed natural selection=20 conditions to prevail, the gene for "fainting" would reach an=20 equilibrium state at some frequency where no more than 5 to 10%=20 (and probably less) of the individuals exhibited the trait - which=20 presumably is about the ratio that would be used in a group to=20 "protect" sheep. (If everyone fell down/played dead under a predator=20 attack then there would be no advantage in having "fainting behavior"=20 as a predator aversion strategy.) I believe that I remember reading that the trait exits in wild=20 populations of goats in southwestern Asia - the wild relatives of=20 domestic goats. If anyone knows for sure and has a reference, I=20 would like to have the info. ---------------------- W. Ray Stricklin University of Maryland From: IN%"Nora_Lewis@Umanitoba.ca" 24-FEB-1999 09:15:42.71 To: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Fainting goats joseph.stookey@usask.ca wrote: > > Dear All, > > A couple of years ago a summer student of mine was handed a video camera > and told to make video recordings of as many different behaviours of > animals as he could during his spare time so we could use them for class > material. One of the behaviours he captured includes footage of a fainting > goat doing his 'fainting-goat' routine. Basically the owner scares the > goat to the point it lapses into a fainting spell, falls over, quivers and > takes awhile to recover. I am not exactly sure of the physiological events > that lead up to fainting, but scaring the animal with loud noises helps > set the process in motion. The more I think of this anomaly the more > I believe selection for this trait seems cruel. Though I must admit I have > not spent much time thinking about it, but I do wonder if they suffer > during or before the fainting spell. Anyway, I wonder if this condition > is present throughout the world of goat keepers or if other countries > would not allow such selection. > > Any fainting goat experts out there? Is it cruel to select for such a > condition? At what point is selecting for abnormality, cruel? (Sounds > like a good exam question.) > > Let me know if you are aware of any attempts to prevent the breeding of > fainting goats. > > Joe > ------------------------------ > Joseph M. Stookey > Department of Herd Medicine and Theriogenology > Western College of Veterinary Medicine > University of Saskatchewan > Saskatoon, Saskatchewan > S7N 5B4 Joe, I think this is an extremely important question, maybe worth a workshop at the N.A. ISAE meetings. How far are we morally justified in breeding animals for overproduction causing disease, malfuntion or pain e.g. mastitis, OCD? How far are we justified in breeding pets for appearance which then causes disease, malfunction or pain e.g. collie eye, tracheal stenosis etc. in bull dogs, hip dysplasia in German Shephards. I'm sure we could come up with many better examples. Nora -- Nora Lewis, Ph.D., D.V.M. Department of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, 12 Dafoe Rd., Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. R3T 2N2 phone: 204 474-9443 fax: 204 474-7628 email Nora_Lewis@UManitoba.Ca From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 24-FEB-1999 09:35:07.34 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fainting goats (welfare) I noticed recently that the supermarket where I usually buy groceries carries frozen Halal goat meat. Halal (Muslim religious rites relating to food) regulations require that food animals be killed by cutting the throat with a sharp knife (and Kosher similarly, I believe), but that animals should not be stunned prior to killing. According to T. Grandin the main welfare problem with this practice is not the pain of the cut itself but the heavy restraint used to carry it out. Is it possible that a fainting goat that spontaneously becomes immobile when seized might suffer less during this method of slaughter than one which does not? If so then one could make an argument that it could be acceptable on humane grounds to selectively breed "self-immobilizing" animals, such as fainting goats, for consumption by people whose religions require that their food animals be prepared in this way. Of course the ideal response for the goat would be to become completely unconscious and insensible to the whole process. But even if it just allows itself to be cleanly cut and bled out without having to endure a wrestling match with a human and being shackled and hoisted up by the feet immediately prior to death, maybe it is in some way better off.?? Just a thought... Jon P.S. So perhaps these fainting goats do have a place. But as a novelty animal that does a "neat trick" when you terrify it? I'm not convinced that we humans have a real need for that. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Watts (___) ) ) University of Saskatchewan |o o|___________/ ( Dept of Herd Medicine O \#/ | ) and Theriogenology |bser| | Statistical | ( Western College of Vet. Med. |vati| | analysis | ) 52 Campus Drive |ons.| \___________/| *& Saskatoon ------ || || %$#@ S7N 1B4 / \ || || ^*@*~ Canada &^%%#$@ wattsjon@duke.usask.ca "The Holy Cow" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"ws31@umail.umd.edu" 24-FEB-1999 10:20:57.36 To: IN%"Nora_Lewis@Umanitoba.ca" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" Subj: RE: Fainting goats & Milch cows On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:17:45 -0800 Nora Lewis wrote: > > I think this is an extremely important question, maybe worth a workshop > at the N.A. ISAE meetings. How far are we morally justified in breeding > animals for overproduction causing disease, malfuntion or pain e.g. > mastitis, OCD? How far are we justified in breeding pets for appearance > which then causes disease, malfunction or pain e.g. collie eye, tracheal > stenosis etc. in bull dogs, hip dysplasia in German Shephards. I'm sure > we could come up with many better examples. > I would suggest that the Canadians in the near future will very much have to face the issues of ethical genetics (my term). When Canada banded the use of rBST, I think they canalized themselves into a position where they will eventually have to address the question, "What is the maximum amount of milk that one cow should be expected to produce?" (I raised this question with a dairy behavior scientist in 1987. His answer was there is no upper limit - that we should strive to obtain as much milk as possible from one cow. I told him that on the basis of his answer and the current trend by dairy scientists and producers that eventually the world would have only _one_ milk cow!) I mention Canada above because I believe the ethical issue (animal welfare issue - in the lexicon of the Canadian Expert Committee report) of rBST use differs little or none from the question, "At what level of milk production is one no longer able to justify increased artificial selection for more milk production." In fact I think if one analyzes the data used to band rBST in Canada one will find that high milk-producing cows have comparable rates of mastitis, feet problems, fertility problems, lowered longevity, etc. that was the reported basis of banning rBST! Therefore, the ethical issue seems to me is clearly founded on the question of how much BST (milk production) should one cow be expected to tolerate. The central question from the cow's viewpoint is not one of, "Where did the BST originated?" The impact on the cow is the same regardless of whether it is rBST or "naturally" occuring BST. Ethically, one could argue Canada has now developed a double standard. It is acceptable to use artificial selection to increase milk production (probably as a consequence of increasing the frequency of genes that produce natural BST in the cow). However, Canada has said that if one uses rBST to bring about the same consequences, then such a practice is not ethically acceptable. I believe that if the ban on rBST in Canada stands, then eventually the Canadians who consider themselves animal welfare scientists will be forced into an arena that involves much discussion about genetics - and an arena that I have argued for some time is one that grounded in _ethics_ and not simply a question of science. The longer I live the more interesting the world seems to be. I think that eventually some of the solutions to issues work out to be what I consider the correct ones. The path and(or) vehicle that is taken to get there, however, I still find rather perplexing. ---------------------- W. Ray Stricklin University of Maryland From: IN%"h.erhard@mluri.sari.ac.uk" "Hans Erhard" 24-FEB-1999 10:32:39.80 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: fainting goats Vivian Bregman wrote: > The discussion was on one of > the many lists that I am on and the point was made by some that it > was cruel to keep breeding these mutants. Many people, however, > said that it was no more cruel than breeding dogs who cannot free > whelp, or who cannot breathe without wheezing, etc. Does anyone think that these people made a valid point? There are apparently quite a few breeds of domestic animals who carry with them genetic disorders which make them succeptible to health- and welfare problems. Long floppy ears, short noses, long weak backs come to mind. Nevertheless, I do not think that the existence of other 'suffering breeds' justifies the 'creation' of a new one. This 'justification' sounds like a cheap excuse to me. In fact, I think that some countries already have welfare laws which could be used to stop the breeding of these animals. Does anyone know whether these laws are enforced somewhere? Hans ____________________________________ Hans Erhard Macaulay Land Use Research Institute Craigiebuckler Aberdeen AB15 8QH Tel.: 01224 - 318611 Fax.: 01224 - 311556 email: h.erhard@mluri.sari.ac.uk From: IN%"pfcarell@gw.dec.state.ny.us" "Paul Carella" 24-FEB-1999 10:52:57.90 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Fainting goats -Reply Vivian wrote: Cruelty seems to be in the eye of the beholder. I disagree. Cruelty is not as subjective a concept as beauty. Cruelty to me is when any unnecessary pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted. Webster defines cruel as : l. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering: devoid of humane feelings. 2a. Causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain. 2b. Unrelievd by leniency. Paul From: IN%"k9acad@iafrica.com" "Glynne Anderson" 24-FEB-1999 10:58:34.34 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca'" CC: Subj: Fainting sheep and 'dead' snakes. Sheep also 'faint'. Any sheep trialist will bear me out ... or perhaps it's only our South African lot who 'play dead'? I've always understood the behaviour to be a survival strategy ... it sure phased the border collies herding them! I know the Cobra family also use 'deception' or do they actually faint which I interprate as passing out from fight. My question to the list - is there a difference between playing dead and fainting? Thanks in anticipation Glynne From: IN%"maina@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU" 24-FEB-1999 12:36:26.15 To: IN%"pfcarell@gw.dec.state.ny.us" "Paul Carella" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Fainting goats -Reply On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Paul Carella wrote: > Vivian wrote: > Cruelty seems to be in the eye of the beholder. > > I disagree. Cruelty is not as subjective a concept as beauty. Cruelty to > me is when any unnecessary pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted. > Webster defines cruel as : l. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering: devoid > of humane feelings. 2a. Causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain. > 2b. Unrelievd by leniency. > > Paul > Dear Paul, I guess the new statement should read: "Unnecessary is in the eye of the beholder". This is where the fun begins: how do we determine what is necessary or unnecessary cruelty? Which values/ethics systems will be counted as important in this determination, and which ones will be neglected or actively avoided? There are many different cultures with many different values and ethics, some of which have not yet reached the publics' awareness. How do we choose? Finally, who will make these choices? A sticky subject for scientists, philosophers, and a whole bunch of others interested in animals (humans included). I suppose we would do well to try to see all sides of the story when tackling complex issues such as these. I really love how a "Fainting Goat" description transforms into animal welfare discussion! (and I'm not being sarcastic) Sincerely, Daniela Maina Dept. of Animal Sciences Rutgers, the State Univ. of New Jersey From: IN%"dreyn@sirius.com" 24-FEB-1999 14:03:19.32 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Fainting goats -Reply maina@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU wrote: > > This is where the fun begins: how do we determine what > is necessary or unnecessary cruelty? Some further thoughts on the question of cruelty to the 'fainting goats': Certainly there are many other types of animals that display unusual predator aversion behaviors when suprised or threatened: opossums and baby barn owls faint dead-away, turkey vultures vomit, doves drop their tail feathers, etc., etc.. Within the wild animal rehabilitation community, it would be considered horrendously unethical to encourage any of these responses to stress out of 'curiousity' or any other reason. Wildlife rehabbers or education animal handlers would probably lose their licenses for *intentionally* startling an animal to such an extreme. It is a widely accepted understanding that stress has a negative impact on the physical as well as psychological well-being of a captive animal. To deliberately create unnecessary stress reactions would be an equal offense to say, occasionally withholding food and water. It may not harm them right away...but over an extended period accumulate and contribute to poor health, physical suffering and possible death. Do domestics in our care deserve less consideration than the wilds because the assumption is that they 'belong' to humans so therefore can be manipulated to our satisfaction ? For my vote, the cruelty to the fainting goats does not begin with the breeding of this tendency to collapse, but rather at it's exploitation by (IMHO) ill-informed owners. -Donna Reynolds From: IN%"gfb1@psu.edu" 24-FEB-1999 14:21:44.74 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology (E-mail)" CC: Subj: Genetics and welfare this is a topic in which i am keenly interested. it seems to me that there are several genetic aspects to this issue an offthecuff outline: 1) is there a phenotypic and/or genetic correlation between the selected phenotype and the 'welfare-related' phenotype? 1a) is the genetic correlation due to linkage, pleiotropy or shared physiological systems? 1a1) if linkage, can it be broken? 1a2) if pleiotropy, can it the welfare-related phenotype be improved via management? 1a3) if shared physiological systems, both/either management and/or linkage analysis may come into play. 1b) if there is no genetic correlation, then has there been genetic drift or founder effect influencing the phenotypes? 1b1) this could involve crossing/hybridization to introduce new, or lost, genes. 1b2) genetic testing could be instituted to remove unwanted/deleterious alleles and or linkage groups from populations. 1c) if its not genetic at all, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm........ 2) one clear advantage to the genetic selection model is the tendency for the genome to become co-adapted with genes that influence the production phenotype. 3) unconscious selection, i.e., genetic adaptation of the animal to management conditions, has been pretty much ignored since Darwin's original observations. we may arrive at very different solutions than "stop the selection!", depending on the genetic architecture of the production-welfare phenotype. what a way to spend a career!!! guy G. F. Barbato Penn State University http://gfb.cas.psu.edu http://genetics.cas.psu.edu From: IN%"L.Jacobson@mirinz.org.nz" "L.Jacobson" 24-FEB-1999 15:29:30.11 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca'" CC: Subj: fainting goats/ritual slaughter Hi Jon and others , Just a note on Halal versus Kosher slaughter - the Halal slaughter requires that the cause of death is through bleed out from a cut made by a Halal (Muslim) slaughterman. In New Zealand, all slaughtered animals must be rendered insensible before slaughter. Consequently, commercial Halal slaughter chains (now most slaughter chains in New Zealand) have head-only electrical stunning which induce epileptiform insensibility - from which the non-slaughtered animal recovers from spontaneously within about 45 seconds(consciousness regained, although probably with disorientation) to 60 seconds (righting responses). The slaughter cut is made by the Halal slaughterman during the period of insensibility caused by the electrical head stun, so that the animal dies from blood loss (unrecoverable insensibility from blood loss from throat cut in sheep is about 10 seconds) before consciousness would otherwise have been regained from the stun. As I understand it, no special restrain devices are necessary for Halal from the religious perspective. (The correctness of the Halal method is certified by an office in NZ acting with the recognized authority of the importing country. The humane slaughter aspects, including correct electrical stunning systems, are regulated by veterinarians on-site in abattoir, which are employed by the NZ government department - the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries). Thus, it is completely possible to properly stun an animal before slaughter for humane reasons, while still complying with the religious requirements for Muslims, and to do so in a commercial meat production environment. Note that head-to-back stunning systems, however, are not acceptable in Halal slaughter, as this form of stunning causes death by heart failure in addition to insensibility - precluding the death by blood loss from the throat cut required for Halal. Interestingly, it seem that after head-only stunning, once consciousness is regained, there is a period of general analgesia (I think it lasts about 5 minutes). My (limited) understanding of Kosher slaughter is that interference with the consciousness of the animal to be slaughtered, such as head-only electrical stunning, is not acceptable. Not being Jewish, I am not sure about the religious requirement for restraint, although I believe that Kosher plants in other parts of the world do have restraining devices. (For those who don't already have it, Temple Grandin's site has heaps of information on ritual slaughter http://www.grandin.com/). With regard to fainting goats, the reduced necessity for restraint in these animals may (or may not?) help to limit their anxiety at slaughter, but absence of consciousness is probably a more complete method! Laura Jacobson Researcher Animal Stress and Welfare Group MIRINZ Food Research and Technology LTD PO Box 617 Hamilton New Zealand +64 7 8548550 l.jacobson@mirinz.org.nz noticed recently that the supermarket where I usually buy groceries carries frozen Halal goat meat. Halal (Muslim religious rites relating to food) regulations require that food animals be killed by cutting the throat with a sharp knife (and Kosher similarly, I believe), but that animals should not be stunned prior to killing. According to T. Grandin the main welfare problem with this practice is not the pain of the cut itself but the heavy restraint used to carry it out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Jon Watts From: IN%"mjwylie@facstaff.wisc.edu" "M.J. Wylie" 24-FEB-1999 18:43:57.41 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fainting Goats, Sheep Playing Dead Just a comment or two about the difference between "fainting goats" and "sheep that play dead".....these are just my personal observations and the terminology may not be exactly perfect..... I train and trial stock dogs as a hobby and I have ONE fainting goat in my sheep & goat flock. I bought the fainting goat when he was a kid because I liked his black and white markings. But I hadn't realized what a "fainting goat" looks like when fainting. I consider it quite pitiful. First, his hind legs will start to stiffen up, then his front legs and lower body, he keels over, wiggles on the ground like he's trying to get up and run away but can't. From talking to owners of multiple fainting goats, I think this is a typical scenario. At first, EVERYTHING set him off. He would react to just seeing a person. He struggled the most when the rest of the flock ran off and left him behind. Now, even a dog can work him as a part of the flock and he doesn't "faint". But I do not intend to intentionally ever purchase such an animal again because it disturbs me to see the struggle. On the other hand, sheep that have learned to "play dead" are quite aware of what is going on around them AND can get up and stand there, leave, or whatever, whenever they want to. Typically I've seen this with a group of 3 to 6 sheep used in a trial run when a dog is too pushy and puts too much pressure on the group. One of the sheep may lie down and the rest continue on. The dog usually stays with the majority and "ignores" the "dead sheep". Some times a dog will nudge at the down sheep but often soon loses interest because the moving sheep are more interesting. The "dead sheep" strategically decides when to get up. If the rest of the sheep are on the other end of the pasture with the dog, I've seen the "dead sheep" stand up and calmly graze. And once a sheep has "learned" to "play dead", that SAME sheep will use that strategy more and more often to avoid being "worked" by a dog. On the other hand, more experienced dogs figure out that (although they "pushed too hard" orginally, unless the particular sheep has "learned" this technique and use it regularly anyway), if they back off from the "dead sheep", the sheep will get up and then can be grouped with the rest. Or, the dog learns to leave the "dead sheep" and bring the rest of the sheep back to the "dead sheep", back off and wait, and the "dead sheep" will often get up and join the small flock again. ******************************** M.J. Wylie, Ph.D. Extension Horse Specialist Professional Animal Scientist (ARPAS) Department of Animal Sciences 1675 Observatory Drive University of Wisconsin Madison, WI 53706 608/263-4303 (voice) 608/262-5157 (FAX) mjwylie@facstaff.wisc.edu From: IN%"bregman@interactive.net" "VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN" 24-FEB-1999 19:58:42.33 To: IN%"pfcarell@gw.dec.state.ny.us" "Paul Carella", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Fainting goats -Reply At 11:48 AM 2/24/99 -0500, Paul Carella wrote: >Vivian wrote: > Cruelty seems to be in the eye of the beholder. > >I disagree. Cruelty is not as subjective a concept as beauty. Cruelty to >me is when any unnecessary pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted. >Webster defines cruel as : l. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering: devoid >of humane feelings. 2a. Causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain. >2b. Unrelievd by leniency. > >Paul This is beginning to turn into the same discussion I have had on some of the dog lists. Is it cruel to use an electric shock collar on a dog if it will train the dog to eventually get more freedom? (BTW, I do not use an electric shock collar personally, but use methods that other have called equally cruel --- prong collars, chain choke collars, lead jerks, etc.) That is, once the dog learns to come when called almost all the time he will be permitted off lead more. If I use some discomfort, pain, suffering, grief etc. to teach this to the dog and he then is reliable enough to be allowed more freedom, does this make me Machiavellian (sp?) The end justifying the means?? As opposed to some of my fellow dog trainers who feel that if a dog cannot be made to come with only positive reinforcements then you use management techniques --- that is, the dog is never allowed freedom. Vivian still looking for answers..... Vivian Bregman -- dog trainer for forty years -- interested in everything to do with science, especially Biology --- bregman@interactive.net From: IN%"cgaboury@total.net" 25-FEB-1999 01:14:12.72 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Fainting goats & Money cows Is it true that farmers have "quotas" or a certain, maximum amount of milk that they are allowed to sell, so that prices remain high enough for them to make a living from farming? And that when they produce more, which is often the case, this excess milk must be destroyed? It's kind of sad that "we" are striving to get more out of cows (perhaps compromising their welfare, as a result) for monetary gains...if it was a question of human hunger, it would seem more justifiable, but it's a question of money! Now this is totally off the wall, but in a perfect world, the money being spent on developing rBST could go to the farmers, so they wouldn't need to have such high producing cows! (O.K.! It's late and I'm tired) Chantal :-) W. Ray Stricklin wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:17:45 -0800 Nora Lewis > wrote: > > > > > I think this is an extremely important question, maybe worth a workshop > > at the N.A. ISAE meetings. How far are we morally justified in breeding > > animals for overproduction causing disease, malfuntion or pain e.g. > > mastitis, OCD? How far are we justified in breeding pets for appearance > > which then causes disease, malfunction or pain e.g. collie eye, tracheal > > stenosis etc. in bull dogs, hip dysplasia in German Shephards. I'm sure > > we could come up with many better examples. > > > > I would suggest that the Canadians in the near future will very much > have to face the issues of ethical genetics (my term). When Canada > banded the use of rBST, I think they canalized themselves into a > position where they will eventually have to address the question, > "What is the maximum amount of milk that one cow should be expected > to produce?" > > (I raised this question with a dairy behavior scientist in 1987. His > answer was there is no upper limit - that we should strive to > obtain as much milk as possible from one cow. I told him that on the > basis of his answer and the current trend by dairy scientists and > producers that eventually the world would have only _one_ milk cow!) > > I mention Canada above because I believe the ethical issue (animal > welfare issue - in the lexicon of the Canadian Expert Committee > report) of rBST use differs little or none from the question, "At > what level of milk production is one no longer able to justify > increased artificial selection for more milk production." > > In fact I think if one analyzes the data used to band rBST in > Canada one will find that high milk-producing cows have comparable > rates of mastitis, feet problems, fertility problems, lowered > longevity, etc. that was the reported basis of banning rBST! > Therefore, the ethical issue seems to me is clearly founded on the > question of how much BST (milk production) should one cow be expected > to tolerate. The central question from the cow's viewpoint is not > one of, "Where did the BST originated?" The impact on the cow is the > same regardless of whether it is rBST or "naturally" occuring BST. > > Ethically, one could argue Canada has now developed a double > standard. It is acceptable to use artificial selection to increase > milk production (probably as a consequence of increasing the > frequency of genes that produce natural BST in the cow). However, > Canada has said that if one uses rBST to bring about the same > consequences, then such a practice is not ethically acceptable. > > I believe that if the ban on rBST in Canada stands, then eventually > the Canadians who consider themselves animal welfare scientists will > be forced into an arena that involves much discussion about genetics > - and an arena that I have argued for some time is one that grounded > in _ethics_ and not simply a question of science. > > The longer I live the more interesting the world seems to be. I > think that eventually some of the solutions to issues work out to be > what I consider the correct ones. The path and(or) vehicle that is > taken to get there, however, I still find rather perplexing. > > ---------------------- > W. Ray Stricklin > University of Maryland From: IN%"cgaboury@total.net" 25-FEB-1999 01:31:43.04 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: fainting goats/ritual slaughter Hi Laura, Would you mind explaining this: > Note that head-to-back stunning systems, however, are not acceptable in > Halal slaughter, as this form of stunning causes death by heart failure in > addition to insensibility - precluding the death by blood loss from the > throat cut required for Halal. I've never heard of it. Thank-you, Chantal :-) From: IN%"cgaboury@total.net" 25-FEB-1999 01:56:24.87 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Fainting goats -Reply There is a difference, here, in my opinion: The dog quickly learns how to avoid the punishment and therefore has control of its environment. The goat, unfortunately, has no control over humans coming up to it and scaring the wits out of it, FOR FUN. From what I have learned, lack of control over and unpredictability of the environment are very stressful for animals. I think the end can justify the means, in certain cercumstances, for example, giving an animal an unpleasant treatment such as dehorning, so that the animals don't injure each other, justifyable because the end-result is for the good of the animal. Stressing an animal out for one's entertainment, of course, is not. Another thing that I find interesting to think about is the interaction between pain and fear. What is worse for an animal, a slightly painful treatment by someone they are very afraid of or a more painful by someone they "trust", (someone with whom they don't display any anxious behaviour). I realize that there is a matter of degree, here but I would go with the second example being less unpleasant for the animal. Any ideas? Chantal :-) VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN wrote: > > At 11:48 AM 2/24/99 -0500, Paul Carella wrote: > >Vivian wrote: > > Cruelty seems to be in the eye of the beholder. > > > >I disagree. Cruelty is not as subjective a concept as beauty. Cruelty to > >me is when any unnecessary pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted. > >Webster defines cruel as : l. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering: devoid > >of humane feelings. 2a. Causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain. > >2b. Unrelievd by leniency. > > > >Paul > > This is beginning to turn into the same discussion I have had on some of > the dog lists. > Is it cruel to use an electric shock collar on a dog if it will train the > dog to eventually get more freedom? > (BTW, I do not use an electric shock collar personally, but use methods > that other have called equally cruel --- prong collars, chain choke > collars, lead jerks, etc.) > That is, once the dog learns to come when called almost all the time he > will be permitted off lead more. > If I use some discomfort, pain, suffering, grief etc. to teach this to the > dog and he then is reliable enough to be allowed more freedom, does this > make me Machiavellian (sp?) The end justifying the means?? > As opposed to some of my fellow dog trainers who feel that if a dog cannot > be made to come with only positive reinforcements then you use management > techniques --- that is, the dog is never allowed freedom. > > Vivian > still looking for answers..... > > Vivian Bregman -- dog trainer for forty years -- > interested in everything to do with science, > especially Biology --- bregman@interactive.net From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" 25-FEB-1999 03:33:19.47 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: fainting goat/tonic immobility? It seems to me that the fainting goat response has many similarities with tonic immobility. This is seen in a wide variety of animals and has been used in pigs and hens as a quantifiable indicator of the antecedent levels of fear. It is usually argued (and has been for the fainting goat) this is a last-ditch, anti-predator response. If so, we could argue that the mental state of an animal in tonic immobility/fainting goat, is the same as an animal that 'believes' it is about to die. Without diving into philosophical arguements about whether animals have a concept of their own mortality, I think most reasonable people would not want to unnecessarily induce in an animal, an intensity of fear that might be expected immediately prior to being killed by a predator - certainly not simply as a curiosity or 'neat-trick'. Regards to all Chris ---------------------- Chris Sherwin Division of Animal Health and Husbandry University of Bristol Langford House Langford Bristol BS40 5DU Phone: (0117) 928 9486 Fax: (01934) 928 9582 E-mail chris.sherwin@bris.ac.uk From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 25-FEB-1999 07:57:26.98 To: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: fainting goat/tonic immobility? >>> Chris Sherwin 02/25 4:31 am >>>It seems to me that the fainting goat response has many similarities with tonic immobility. (snip) I think most reasonable people would not want to unnecessarily induce in an animal, an intensity of fear that might be expected immediately prior to being killed by a predator ->>> I am not sure how frightened animals are "immediately prior to being killed". I have seen a few films of antelopes or whatever that have been caught by big cats, and that escape by making an unexpected dash just when the cat's attention lapses, presumably because they think the hunt is over. I guess this is the function of fainting or tonic immobility. In such circumstances, I would imagine it is an advantage _not_ to be terrified, but to be cool, calm and collected. I also read a very interesting book of eyewitness accounts by people who managed to survive bear attacks. Apparently, when the bear is running towards you, it is rather scary. But most people report that, once the bear started chomping on their legs or head, they became very calm and hypersensitive to small details (noticing the bear's bad breath or broken teeth). Once you get down to the wire like that, what small chance remains of escaping probably depends on being super-unafraid. Jeff Rushen ************************************************** Jeffrey Rushen, Ph. D. Dairy and Swine Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, PO Box 90, 2000 Road 108 East, Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada J1M 1Z3 Ph. 1-819-5659174 ext 206 Fax. 1-819-5645507 Email. rushenj@em.agr.ca ************************************************** ! ! From: IN%"bjarne.braastad@ihf.nlh.no" "Bjarne O. Braastad" 25-FEB-1999 10:03:40.42 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: fainting goat/tonic immobility - laying hens At 08:44 25.02.99 -0500, Jeff Rushen wrote (short clips): ....... >I am not sure how frightened animals are "immediately prior to >being killed"...... >I guess this is the function of fainting or tonic immobility. >In such circumstances, I would imagine it is an advantage >_not_ to be terrified, but to be cool, calm and collected. >....... Apparently, >when the bear is running towards you, it is rather scary. >But most people report that, once the bear started chomping on their legs or head, they became very calm and hypersensitive to >small details (noticing the bear's bad breath or broken teeth). Once you get down to the wire like that, what small chance > remains of escaping probably depends on being super-unafraid. I would agree with this, in general. But for tonic immobility in domestic fowl it is shown by a large number of studies that there is a clear correlation between the duration of the tonic immobility response and other measures of fear or fearfulness (see e.g. the rather old review by Jones, 1986, World's Poultry Science Journal, 42: 82-96). I made a study some years ago to reveal the hen's ability to adjust her behaviour during tonic immobility in response to the (human) predator's behaviour, e.g. rise up after the predator has left or remain longer if he comes back, (with different research groups). This would be expected if this behaviour was an adaptive antipredator strategy. However, it was not possible to clearly affect the hen's duration of tonic immobility. This indicates that at least in the domestic fowl this behaviour is not so flexible as one could predict. (The lack of effects unfortunately made this work unpublishable.) If Jeff's suggestion was correct, a reduced fear level at onset and during tonic immobility should increase the probability of making adaptive responses. It would be interesting to examine whether the mechanisms behind such adaptive strategies somehow have been damaged during the domestication. Bjarne ********************************************************** Bjarne O. Braastad (Dr.Philos.) Associate Professor of Ethology Dept. of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Norway, P.O. Box 5025, N-1432 Aas, Norway e-mail: bjarne.braastad@ihf.nlh.no fax: +47 64 94 79 60 phone: +47 64 94 79 80 http://www.nlh.no/Institutt/IHF/presside/Braastad.htm ********************************************************** From: IN%"bcsmith@capital.net" "cynthia p. smith" 25-FEB-1999 11:12:47.89 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: beef cattle book citation I am need of the full citation for one of Temple Grandin's book. Grandin, T. (199?). Beef Cattle Behaviour Handling and Facilities Design Book, ? I need the copyright, publisher, publisher address, number of pages, and ISBN number. For some reason I do not find this book in CAB, AGRICOLA, or Books in Print. I also tried AMAZON.com and searched the CSU library holdings and the Library of Congress catalog. Temple's web page contains info on the book, but not the details I need. If someone has this book on their shelf, would you be so kind as to provide me with the full citation. Thank you for your assistance. Cindy Smith bcsmith@capital.net USDA, ARS, NAL Animal Welfare Information Center http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic From: IN%"pfcarell@gw.dec.state.ny.us" "Paul Carella" 25-FEB-1999 13:31:01.94 To: IN%"maina@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Fainting goats -Reply -Reply I once heard an anecdote that went something like - - - Several Westerners = studying Eastern philosophy, religion, etc. were riding in a car in India = having a discussion of *awareness.* They were so involved in the = discussion that they failed to notice when their vehicle hit a dog along = the road. Scientists, philosophers, and others will happily spend eons = discussing when it is or is not necessary to inflict pain and suffering on = animals (and even humans). As the famous scientist/philosopher/songwriter = Don Henley (?) once said, *Meanwhile, have another beer.* Paul >>> 02/24/99 11:45am >>> On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Paul Carella wrote: > Vivian wrote: > Cruelty seems to be in the eye of the beholder. >=20 > I disagree. Cruelty is not as subjective a concept as beauty. Cruelty = to > me is when any unnecessary pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted.= =20 > Webster defines cruel as : l. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering: = devoid > of humane feelings. 2a. Causing or conducive to injury, grief, or = pain.=20 > 2b. Unrelievd by leniency. >=20 > Paul >=20 Dear Paul, I guess the new statement should read: =22Unnecessary is in the = eye of the beholder=22.=20 This is where the fun begins: how do we determine what is necessary or unnecessary cruelty? Which values/ethics systems will be counted as important in this determination, and which ones will be neglected or actively avoided? There are many different cultures with many different values and ethics, some of which have not yet reached the publics=27 awareness. How do we choose? Finally, who will make these choices? A sticky subject for scientists, philosophers, and a whole bunch of others interested in animals (humans included). I suppose we would do well to try to see all sides of the story when tackling complex issues such as these.=20 I really love how a =22Fainting Goat=22 description transforms into animal welfare discussion=21 (and I=27m not being = sarcastic)=20 Sincerely, Daniela Maina Dept. of Animal Sciences Rutgers, the State Univ. of New Jersey From: IN%"L.Jacobson@mirinz.org.nz" "L.Jacobson" 25-FEB-1999 13:48:37.81 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: fainting goats/ritual slaughter Hi Chantal, Electrical stunning systems rely on the passage of current through tissues to effect the stun - to get epileptiform insensibility, the current must pass through the brain - so electrode placement is either side of the brain/head - hence the effectiveness of head-only electrical stunning and also electro-convusive therapy in human medicine. For animal head-only electrical stuns, recovery of consciousness is spontaneous within about 1 minute. The head-to-back stunning system developed and used in meat plants in New Zealand is a variation on the head-only electrical stunning theme - the electrode placement are (for sheep slaughter) on the top of the head and in the center of the back (longitudinally behind where the heart is located). This puts current though the brain and the heart, producing instantaneous epileptiform insensibility in the brain while simultaneous stopping the heart - so cause of death = ischemic brain death (while insensible). No recovery - very quick death. This is why it is not appropriate for Halal - where the death of the animal must be a result of the cut (made by a Muslim) and resultant blood loss. In both the head-only followed closely by throat cut (the cut needs to be made within about 10-15 seconds of end of stun), and in head-to-back stunning, the death of the animal occurs while it is insensible/unconscious. Laura Jacobson Researcher Animal Stress and Welfare Group MIRINZ Food Technology and Research LTD PO Box 617 Hamilton New Zealand Ph +64 7 8548550 l.jacobson@mirinz.org.nz -----Original Message----- From: Chantal Gaboury [mailto:cgaboury@total.net] Sent: Thursday, 25 February 1999 20:45 To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: fainting goats/ritual slaughter Hi Laura, Would you mind explaining this: > Note that head-to-back stunning systems, however, are not acceptable in > Halal slaughter, as this form of stunning causes death by heart failure in > addition to insensibility - precluding the death by blood loss from the > throat cut required for Halal. I've never heard of it. Thank-you, Chantal :-) From: IN%"stookey@sask.usask.ca" 25-FEB-1999 15:14:31.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" CC: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Fainting goats - so what? Dear All, When I started this tread, I must admit that I wrote my question in a very naive manner not knowing the implications of what I asked. You may recall I asked if breeding for the fainting-goat condition is cruel? Philosophically, of course this question has much deeper implications about what should be considered cruel in breeding, in rearing conditions, in routine management decisions with livestock, pets, etc.? Before I go too far down that road though I want to share a bit more of my thoughts about the fainting goats. Someone pointed out that the 'usefulness' of the condition was to have the goat serve as the scraficial lamb during predation. (Maybe this information was retrieved from a fainting goat website - I am not sure). However, if you think about it, does that make any sense? I have worked with sheep for a number of years and I had subscribed to all the sheep magazines. There are plenty of advertisements for donkeys, guard dogs, and llamas as potential guardians of sheep, but never have I seen advertized in the back of a sheep magazine an advertizement along the following line - "Are you having problems with predation? - Then you need to buy one of our fainting goats! Coyotes, wolves and bears will eat our fainting goats before your prized sheep! Once they consume your fainting goat you can come back to us and buy another one!" That does not make sense. Or alternatively a sheep producer could raise and breed his own fainting goats for that purpose. But wouldn't the selection pressure put on the goats by predators go something like this - catch and eat the easiest prey (those that faint), therefore selection would favor those goats that run away? Unless, predators prefer to catch a running prey over those that lie still, which also means that fainting goats are not a useful counter measure to predation. Anyway you look at it fainting goats are not scarificial lambs bred to stop predation in sheep flocks or goat flocks; it just does not add up that way. The truth is fainting goats are bred for novelty and displayed as such. I am sure most fainting goat breeders do not make their goats faint on a daily basis. However, I can imagine that when a potential buyer or the cousins from town show up on the farm for a visit, that the fainting goat paddock is a popular site and the breeder takes pride in the goats that fall over! Yet, I would also wager that most fainting goat breeders probably have each goat individually named, give them access to large areas, provide them with proper nutrition and overall make a fuss over them because they love them! I suspect that many of them have never considered the condition or breeding for the condition as being 'cruel'. Which brings me to the next question. How come fainting goat breeders can purposefully breed for a condition that to me appears so blantantly pitiful and 'un-caring'? I can not help but wonder why it looks cruel to me and not to the goat-breeder? No amount of science would probably change either of our minds. The goat breeder knows it does not kill the goat, it recovers each time, it has a good life, etc. etc., but I believe the involuntary condition contains some elements of suffering on the part of the animal. So, do I think there should be a campaign or law to stop the proliferation of fainting goats? Absolutely not. In the end it is not science, legislation or a revolution that will move issues like this towards a resolution, but instead evolution of our thinking. In the not too distant past, had I witnessed a fainting-goat, I would have remarked, "Wow, did you see what that goat just did - that was cool!" Now I just think, as people, we really do some sick things with our aniamls. What really scares me (it scares me because farm boys shouldn't think like this), as it must Ray Stricklin, I really do not want to reach the day we breed the one dairy cow that can produce enough milk for all of Saskatoon, but I do not know what to look for as a reasonable stopping point before we get there! Nor would I feel comfortable standing up to say, "Okay you dairy producers - enough is enough", especially when it has always seemed so noble to work towards better efficiency and production. How many eggs does a chicken have to lay, how quick does a broiler have to grow, how much milk does a cow have to produce, or how many piglets does a sow need to produce until we reach an obscene level? As my children might ask, "Are we there yet? Are we almost there? How will we know when we get there?" I know it may sound Iike I am troubled by all of this, but really it is the dog and cat breeders that I really worry about! Did you ever look at a book with all the pitiful mutant dog and cat breeds? :) Cheers, Joe ------------------------------ Joseph M. Stookey Department of Herd Medicine and Theriogenology Western College of Veterinary Medicine University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5B4 From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" 26-FEB-1999 03:38:41.19 To: IN%"stookey@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" Subj: RE: Fainting goats - so what? Dear Joe, I agree with your arguement that selection pressure would tend to make animals which faint or go into tonic immobility UNsuitable as sacrificial individuals. I can recollect (but not lay my hands upon at the moment; try Jones (1986) The tonic immobility reaction of the domestic fowl: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal 42, 82-96) a report which shows that hens going into tonic immobility are more likely to survive an attack by foxes than hens which run away. The various thoughts of why this occur include the absence of feedback to the predator prematurely breaking the predatory attack, a response which the fox is not expecting and therefore which it finds confusing, and, the fox believes the hen is dead and would prefer fresher meat. > I know it may sound Iike I am troubled by all of this, but really it is > the dog and cat breeders that I really worry about! Did you ever look at > a book with all the pitiful mutant dog and cat breeds? :) > > Whilst I also agree with you on this point, I think we should continue to look with concern at some of the breeds we have now developed for commercial farming - perhaps most notably meat birds. Many of them cannot survive to breeding age without being chronically starved because otherwise they would put on too much weight, and others which have such dysfunctional musculo-skeletal systems they can become unable to walk and starve to death. ---------------------- Chris Sherwin Division of Animal Health and Husbandry University of Bristol Langford House Langford Bristol BS40 5DU Phone: (0117) 928 9486 Fax: (01934) 928 9582 E-mail chris.sherwin@bris.ac.uk From: IN%"mappleby@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 26-FEB-1999 04:12:40.27 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Fainting goats - so what? Dear Joe et al > Nor would I feel comfortable standing up to say, "Okay you dairy producers > - enough is enough", especially when it has always seemed so noble to work > towards better efficiency and production. That is exactly the sort of thing we need to say. I'm not sure such work was ever 'noble' - although it was certainly appropriate and encouraged by society in general - but I am clear that it is not noble now. Which is not to say that I blame producers (or breeders, who may not be the same people) alone for being 'ignoble' now. Society has encouraged economic competition among such suppliers, and society has to find ways of preventing further damaging effects of such competition. I do believe, though, that producers could be more open to such initiatives (such as development of alternative housing) - could indeed take such initiatives themselves - rather than resisting them, which seems to be the common pattern. One major step which surely has to come is higher rather than lower prices for animal products - or rather a reversal in the long-term decline in such prices. Now there's a worthwhile topic for a campaign. Mike Michael Appleby Dr M.C. Appleby Director of Postgraduate Studies in Agriculture & Resource Economics Institute of Ecology and Resource Management University of Edinburgh West Mains Road Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK Tel. +44 131 535 4098 Fax. +44 131 667 2601 Email mappleby@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk or michael.appleby@ed.ac.uk From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" 26-FEB-1999 05:47:11.27 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: fainting goats/hens etc Dear Joe et al., I agree with your arguement that selection pressure would tend to make animals which faint or go into tonic immobility UNsuitable as sacrificial individuals. I can recollect (but not lay my hands upon at the moment; try Jones (1986) The tonic immobility reaction of the domestic fowl: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal 42, 82-96) a report which shows that hens going into tonic immobility are more likely to survive an attack by foxes than hens which run away. The various thoughts of why this occur include the absence of feedback to the predator prematurely breaking the predatory attack, a response which the fox is not expecting and therefore which it finds confusing, and, the fox believes the hen is dead and would prefer fresher meat. > I know it may sound Iike I am troubled by all of this, but really it is > the dog and cat breeders that I really worry about! Did you ever look at > a book with all the pitiful mutant dog and cat breeds? :) > > Whilst I also agree with you on this point, I think we should continue to look with concern at some of the breeds we have now developed for commercial farming - perhaps most notably meat birds. Many of them cannot survive to breeding age without being chronically starved because otherwise they would put on too much weight, and others which have such dysfunctional musculo-skeletal systems they can become unable to walk and starve to death. ---------------------- Chris Sherwin Division of Animal Health and Husbandry University of Bristol Langford House Langford Bristol BS40 5DU Phone: (0117) 928 9486 Fax: (01934) 928 9582 E-mail chris.sherwin@bris.ac.uk From: IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "Deborah McWilliams" 26-FEB-1999 12:07:09.28 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: stockperson ref's Hi all! I have had some requests for the ref's from Gonyou and associates re: attributes of people who work well with animals. Here are the ref's and they will also connect you to other sources. If I remember correctly, most of the handling methods discussed work well with many species. There is probably more recent info as I did the work about 4 years ago. 1) Gonyou, Hemsworth and Barnett "Effects of frequent interactions with humans on growing pigs" Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 269-278 (1986) 2) Hemsworth, Barnett, Hansen and Gonyou " The influence of early contact with humans on susequent behavioural response of pigs to humans" Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 55-63 (1986) 3) Hemsworth, Brand and Willems "The behavioural response of sows to the presence of human beings and its relation to productivity" Livestock Production Science 8: 67-74 (1981) 4) Hemsworth, Barnett, Coleman and Hansen "A study of the relationships between the attitudinal and behavioural profiles of sotckpersons and the level of fear of humans and reproductive performance of commercial pigs" Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 301-314 (1989) 5) English "Stockmanship, empathy and pig behaviour" Pig Veterinary Journal 26: 56-84 (1991) DebMcW dmcwilliams@aps.uoguelph.ca Deborah A. McWilliams Room 043, Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2X7 From: IN%"V.W.Koch@usda.gov" "V W Koch" 26-FEB-1999 13:34:00.62 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Fainting goats, dead animals, genes, etc. I've been out for awhile, and I come back, and you guys have been really busy in my absence, on some great topics. Here are some of my responses to what's been going on, in the hope they'll prompt some more interesting responses. I have always felt that a lot of altruism in humans is just an accidental effect of the kin selection process. If man is identifying his kin by emotional attachments and geographical proximity (which would have defined kin before we got so civilized), then animals, adopted kids, etc., would receive the same altruism as real kin, and as our "communities" got larger, our altruistic tendencies would also expand. However, this expansion seems dependent on sufficient resources. In Third World countries, animals are not treated like kin (and neither are the guys in the next village). The point that properly caring for my animals is a benefit to my own fitness (physical and mental) is a good one, though. I'm sure there are many reasons why animals can become genuine "members of the family." The idea about who would be the best altruist and the best beneficiary in today's society is also interesting. My only meaningful relatives are my parents, and I will have much less of a reason to live when they are gone. (I'm not suicidal or anything, and I do have a horse who is a member of my family and needs me to continue to provide support, but I do think this is a factor in peoples' willingness to fight for life.) I might indeed be more willing to jump into the water to save a pregnant lady than another woman who has young children she needs to raise, especially if I considered all the fame and fortune that might result (although I doubt this is usually a factor). I'm no longer interested in attracting a mate, but if there's a little fortune with the fame, it's always useful buying groceries (or horse feed). Fame itself is probably rewarding, too. However, part of the problem with this emphasis on reproducing our genes is that we've done too good a job of it. Nowadays, we need a gene that makes reproduction impossible once you've produced one replacement. For this reason, I don't think the high reproducer would be the best beneficiary. Of course, this is the logical argument From: IN%"V.W.Koch@usda.gov" "V W Koch" 26-FEB-1999 14:28:43.43 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Fainting goats, dead animals, genes, etc. I apologize that only part of this went out at first. I work on these things in pieces, and somebody wanted to use my computer, thought I'd finished the message, and hit send. Anyway, here's the complete version. I've been out for awhile, and I come back, and you guys have been really busy in my absence, on some great topics. Here are some of my responses to what's been going on, in the hope they'll prompt some more interesting responses. I have always felt that a lot of altruism in humans is just an accidental effect of the kin selection process. If man is identifying his kin by emotional attachments and geographical proximity (which would have defined kin before we got so civilized), then animals, adopted kids, etc., would receive the same altruism as real kin, and as our "communities" got larger, our altruistic tendencies would also expand. However, this expansion seems dependent on sufficient resources. In Third World countries, animals are not treated like kin (and neither are the guys in the next village). The point that properly caring for my animals is a benefit to my own fitness (physical and mental) is a good one, though. I'm sure there are many reasons why animals can become genuine "members of the family." The idea about who would be the best altruist and the best beneficiary in today's society is also interesting. My only meaningful relatives are my parents, and I will have much less of a reason to live when they are gone. (I'm not suicidal or anything, and I do have a horse who is a member of my family and needs me to continue to provide support, but I do think this is a factor in peoples' willingness to fight for life.) I might indeed be more willing to jump into the water to save a pregnant lady than another woman who has young children she needs to raise, especially if I considered all the fame and fortune that might result (although I doubt this is usually a factor). I'm no longer interested in attracting a mate, but if there's a little fortune with the fame, it's always useful buying groceries (or horse feed). Fame itself is probably rewarding, too. However, part of the problem with this emphasis on reproducing our genes is that we've done too good a job of it. Nowadays, we need a gene that makes reproduction impossible once you've produced one replacement. For this reason, I don't think the high reproducer would be the best beneficiary. Of course, this is the logical argument, and anthropomorphically speaking, my genes just want to out-reproduce everyone else; they're not interested in logic. I also found it interesting that rats and monkeys would bar-press to stop distress in a neighbor. This may be as simple as "your noise is disturbing my peace and quiet", but I bet there's more to it than that. People find it distressful (at the very least, embarrassing) to watch another person's distress, even if it's a total stranger, and I'd certainly bar-press to escape the situation. Which leads us to the dead animal issues. I, too, think animals can experience grief (at least to the extent of missing a person or another pet), and there's a lot of anecdotal evidence on the subject. If they don't recognize death, they certainly recognize when something is morbid. My pet stallion once absolutely refused to get anywhere near a horse that was down and dying in a ring at a stable, nor would he approach the spot for a long time after the horse had died and been removed. That was the only time in 22 years that he refused to do what I wanted, regardless of what I did (we needed to go by the horse to get into the stable). Years later, I saw another horse behave the same way, refusing to go into a part of a ring that was near a pasture where there was a dying horse (standing up this time). Someone did suggest to me once, though, that behaviors such as wandering through the house looking for the missing companion might continue simply because it was rewarded by the owner; i.e., the grieving owner interpreted it as grieving behavior and called to the pet to provide (mutual) comfort. Again, it's usually safe to suspect there's more than one possible cause for anything. Finally, there's the idea of cruelty being in the eye of the beholder. I alluded above to the fact that sufficient resources allow us to be more altruistic. Joe pointed out that things we once saw no problem with, we now see as cruel. Maybe someday, no one will eat meat, and society will look back on us as barbarians (note: I am a confirmed meat-eater). Cruelty probably is cruelty, but the recognition of cruelty is certainly in the eye (and socialization) of the beholder. For example, dehorning was used as an example of the end justifying the means. The end is worthy, but if all animals received pain relief for dehorning you wouldn't need to justify the (nonexistent) pain. Another justification I've heard is that it's less stressful just to dehorn than it is to give the pain relief. That's probably true in some cases, but if the animal were properly socialized to handling, then that argument is also lost. I do agree that it is less stressful for an animal to receive more pain (within limits) from someone it "trusts" than less pain from someone it fears. Another interesting point. The electric shock collar reminded me of something I've maintained for years. I spoil my pet horses shamelessly, and as a result, they probably get punished more often than they would if I didn't; i.e., they're always pushing the envelope, and sometimes they misjudge. I am convinced, however, that they are happier being spoiled and taking their punishments than they would be if they had fewer punishments because they weren't allowed to "express their opinions." Certainly, no one would ever accuse them of being "cowed" by the punishments I've dished out! So, now I need to get back to work to earn the money to support me and my current spoiled pet. Keep up the interesting discussions! Wendy Koch v.w.koch@usda.gov From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 26-FEB-1999 14:47:44.50 To: IN%"mappleby@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" CC: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" Subj: RE: Fainting goats - so what? On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Mike Appleby wrote: > Dear Joe et al > > > Nor would I feel comfortable standing up to say, "Okay you dairy producers > > - enough is enough", especially when it has always seemed so noble to work > > towards better efficiency and production. > > That is exactly the sort of thing we need to say. I feel certain that if we stand up at a producer meeting and tell farmers that they need to stop selecting for increased milk production, slow the rate of growth of their broilers and be content with the current number of piglets produced per sow we run the risk of being viewed by producers as having crossed over to the 'dark side'. You may be correct in what you say in regards to the welfare issues and the path that should be followed, but if you say it wrong or come across too judgemental I am certain many producer groups in our country will not give you a second chance to say it again! I believe there is a very fine line between leading and working with the industry versus being viewed as 'one of THOSE people' by the producers. I have tried to think of the various ways that an industry could be led to adopt more welfare friendly procedures. Let's take one example, such as battery cages for hens, where a more friendly welfare system might be something other than battery cages. There are several possible approaches, some with more promise than others. Through government and legislation you could work towards a ban on battery cages! There is some logic to that approach because producers claim that the alternative systems put them at an economic disadvantage; so you might think that if a battery cage ban was legislated then at least there would be an even playing field for all producers. This might sound logical, but no producer group wants that approach. This is not leading an industry; this would be forcing an industry. In the end you simple divide people further and as a scientist promoting an alternative system you will end up looking like a bad guy in the eyes of the producers. Could you promote an alternative systems approach just through salesmanship alone? You may gain the attention of a few innovative producers. However, if you do convince them to use an alternate system and in fact put them at an economic disadvantage you have simply succeeded in helping to weed out the welfare-sympathetic producers. Do you think scientific findings could shift the industry to move away from battery cages voluntarily? What information could you come up with that they do not already know that would convince them to phase out the battery cage and adopt an alternative system? I can not think of any! Producers already know the battery cage system 'works' for them for a number of reasons (right or wrong). More science will not change too many minds. The only way that I see the egg producing industry, let's say in Canada, to voluntarily move away from battery cages towards alternative systems is through labelling. Label every egg carton as to the type of system the eggs were produced and then you stand a chance of shifting an industry's mentality. You also give consumers the chance to support the type of industry that fits their conscience and pocket book. You give scientists the chance to develop alternative systems and prove the merits and disadvantages of the systems. Consumers can use the science to help formulate their conscience and producers can use the science to help use the systems they choose to operate. In this approach scientists do not have to be bad guys and systems are not shoved down producers throats. Welfare groups can do their campaigning and dress in chicken costumes to shame people into choosing a particular type of egg that meets the welfare group's standards. Battery cage advocates can talk food safety, economic benefits and farmers-know-best jargon! Everybody should be happy with this approach! Of course you may scream, "Stookey, what about the chickens? While you wait to let the market place move the industry millions of chickens suffer! Blah, blah,blah!" The egg producing industry did not adopt battery cages overnight, nor without the market place forcing their hand. Let the market place help evolve the industry again through the purchase power of consumers just as it did throughout the entire history of the industry. The chickens can survive another few years (most of the chickens are not aware that there is an alternative system out there - so we ought to have some more time before the chickens really get mad at us). If the consumer can buy dolphin-free tuna because of labeling and eventually shape how tuna are caught, I do not see why consumers can not buy non-battery cage eggs and have the same effect - if it is judged by the bulk of society to be the morally (or politically) correct thing to do. Some in the industry will argue, "But scientifically we can not tell the difference between an egg laid by a chicken in a battery cage from the one coming from an alternate system. Do you want us to tell the consumer every feed ingredient too?" The consumer doesn't want to know everything! As an example, they don't care if the tuna were caught using a 2 man rowboat or an ocean trawler or whether the fish was a 50 lb or a 500 lb tuna. They don't care if tuna taste the same regardless of the net they were caught in. Some consumers just want to know that their tuna was caught without dolphins drowning in the nets. The tuna industry is smart enough to figure out what the consumer wants. The agricultural industry may benefit from a similar approach. No producer should fear such an approach if they are convinced they are using the best system. Unfortunately, I do not believe every welfare issue can be solved through labeling. Such things as castration, dehorning, branding, tail docking, beak trimming, etc. are not items that are going to be listed on each package. Collectively, each procedure adds up, but not to the point that every consumer wants to know or cares what technique or procedure the animal was exposed to during its life. However, ethically it seems there ought to be a move towards livestock industries adopting those procedures and techniques that we know are more welfare friendly. Again I do not believe in legislating these procedures. I really think we have to work towards a change in tradition and a change in heart before these things will come to pass. Through education and information we can gradually move industries in the right direction. It will be a long and continuous struggle to change producers' beliefs and lifestyle just as so many other things in life tend to be difficult to change. Many people do not look after their own health and welfare even though they have conclusive proof that certain lifestyles have a negative impact. Not until you change peoples beliefs do you make much progress. You change people's beliefs by working with them and having them trust in you. I beleive we often run the risk of lossing the producers' trust if we are not careful how we deliver the message. Even the following statement by Mike (which echoes things I have probably said at one time or another) is a dangerous way to think or express ourselves because it could easily be construed as judgemental or the expressed opinions of an outsider looking in. It doesn't build trust between scientists and producers. > (much deleted) > I do believe, though, that producers could be more > open to such initiatives (such as development of alternative housing) > - could indeed take such initiatives themselves - rather than > resisting them, which seems to be the common pattern. > (some deleted) > Mike > My veterinarian colleagues in my department face a similar problem in obtaining compliance among their clients. The most effective veterinarians get compliance by working closely with their clients and by gaining their trust. They have great data, for example, to suggest that producers should vaccinate their animals, practice good hygiene, use a certain medication, etc., but compliance comes only after they have gained the producer's trust. There is a similar lesson in that example for all of us animal welfare scientists and ethologists working to get compliance on animal welfare friendly practices. Cheers, Joe -------------------------------- Joseph M. Stookey Department of Herd Medicine and Theriogenology Westen College of Veterinary Medicine Univesity of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5B4 Canada From: IN%"JNM@dmu.ac.uk" "Jeremy Marchant" 26-FEB-1999 15:02:44.15 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: stockperson ref's Martin Seabrook at University of Nottingham has done some interesting work on personality of good and not so good stockpeople, although it hasn't as far as I know been published anywhere very accessible... There is a useful piece of work in the Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology in Farm Animals (pp245-250), entitled "The personality of the dairy stockman and its influence on the interaction process", which was published by KTBL, Darmstadt in 1984. The conclusion is that the best stockpeople were 'confident introverts'! There is also a paper in Veterinary Record, but I can't comment on the content as I don't have a copy to hand: Seabrook, M.F. (1984) The psychological interaction between the stockman and his animals and its influence on performance of pigs and dairy cows. Vet Rec, 115: 84-87. Jeremy Dr. Jeremy Marchant, School of Agriculture, De Montfort University, Caythorpe, Grantham, Lincs., NG32 3EP, UK +44 1400 275682 From: IN%"chris.gotman@sympatico.ca" 26-FEB-1999 15:23:31.64 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Only one kid? More musings on kin selection and altruism! What fun! :-) V W Koch threw in the suggestion that there would be an advantage in selecting for people whose ouput is one child per couple. Quote: << However, part of the problem with this emphasis on reproducing our genes is that we've done too good a job of it. Nowadays, we need a gene that makes reproduction impossible once you've produced one replacement.>> The advantage of a stable population on helping maintaining our present social structure and all the neat technology that goes with it is well accepted. In sci-fi stories anarchy and population crashes go hand in hand. But I'm not so sure that a population crash would have much effect on genetic diversity. I've been told (or read?) that genetic variability in Galapagos tortoises remains as high as in the original population due to rapid and indiscriminant mortality. Insufficient time has passed for selection pressures to winnow the survivors. So what? Well, from a gene's perspective, whatever made us successful will be retained after a population crash. Therefore there is no selection pressure to reduce net recuitment to zero. I'm still looking for suicidal behaviors triggered by advanced age that cannot be explained by: geriatric physiology or stress related to high population density. Any suggestions? sincerely, Chris Gotman Quebec, Canada From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 26-FEB-1999 15:30:48.36 To: IN%"JNM@dmu.ac.uk", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: RE: stockperson ref's >>> Jeremy Marchant 02/26 3:54 pm >>> Martin Seabrook at University of Nottingham has done some interesting work on personality of good and not so good stockpeople, although it hasn't as far as I know been published anywhere very accessible...>>> Seabrook, M. F. (1994). Psychological interaction between the milker and the dairy cow. Dairy Systems for the 21st Century (pp. 49-58). St. Joseph, Michigan: ASAE. Seabrook, M. F. (1972). A study to determine the influence of the herdsman"s personality on milk yield. Journal of Agriculture Labour Science, 45-59. Seabrook, M. F., & Bartle, N. C. (1992). Environmental factors influencing the production and welfare of farm animals. Farm Animal and the Environment (pp. 111-130). Wallingford, Oxon.: CABI. Jeff Rushen ************************************************** Jeffrey Rushen, Ph. D. Dairy and Swine Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, PO Box 90, 2000 Road 108 East, Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada J1M 1Z3 Ph. 1-819-5659174 ext 206 Fax. 1-819-5645507 Email. rushenj@em.agr.ca ************************************************** ! ! From: IN%"DMCWILLIAMS@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "Deborah McWilliams" 26-FEB-1999 15:42:12.14 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: stockperson ref's Hi Jeremy! > Martin Seabrook at University of Nottingham has done some interesting > work on personality of good and not so good stockpeople, although it > hasn't as far as I know been published anywhere very accessible... I would agree that he has done some excellent work. DebMcW dmcwilliams@aps.uoguelph.ca Deborah A. McWilliams Room 043, Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2X7 From: IN%"V.W.Koch@usda.gov" "V W Koch" 26-FEB-1999 16:06:27.89 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Fainting goats - so what? Joseph M. Stookey wrote: >Unfortunately, I do not believe every welfare issue can be solved through >labeling. Such things as castration, dehorning, branding, tail docking, >beak trimming, etc. are not items that are going to be listed on each >package. Don't be so sure! The people in Beverly Hills, California are going to be voting on a referendum to require fur coats to be labeled with all the possible ways the fur animals are killed! I'm not sure enough of the public care enough (yet) for labelling to make a difference (on the fur issue or on battery eggs), but "factory farming" does seem to be gaining strength as a public issue (and fur sales are down, I think). I have suggested to some of the more forward-looking industry types that they create an "accreditation" organization to give credit to those people moving toward more humane practices (such as analgesia for pain-producing experiences). The fact that one is accredited could be easily used on a label (like the "This milk is BST-free" which is popular in some places now). Wendy v.w.koch@usda.gov From: IN%"bregman@interactive.net" "VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN" 26-FEB-1999 16:19:53.56 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Only one kid? At 04:21 PM 2/26/99 -0800, you wrote: >More musings on kin selection and altruism! What fun! :-) > I'm still looking for suicidal behaviors triggered by advanced age >that cannot be explained by: geriatric physiology or stress related to >high population density. Any suggestions? > >sincerely, >Chris Gotman Have you ever seen the old people drive in south Florida? Suicidal behavior. Well after they should not be driving. I have family members who keep driving after they should not. Names deleted, Vivian Vivian Bregman -- dog trainer for forty years -- interested in everything to do with science, especially Biology --- bregman@interactive.net From: IN%"JSWANSON@oz.oznet.ksu.edu" 26-FEB-1999 17:12:32.27 To: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" CC: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" Subj: RE: Fainting goats - so what? Joe, Labeling or branding welfare friendly products? This sounds like Freedom Food to me! Any comments from the UK? Janice Date sent: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:46:04 -0600 (CST) From: joseph.stookey@usask.ca Subject: Re: Fainting goats - so what? To: Mike Appleby Copies to: STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca, applied-ethology > > On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Mike Appleby wrote: > > > Dear Joe et al > > > > > Nor would I feel comfortable standing up to say, "Okay you dairy > > > producers - enough is enough", especially when it has always seemed so > > > noble to work towards better efficiency and production. > > > > That is exactly the sort of thing we need to say. > > I feel certain that if we stand up at a producer meeting and tell farmers > that they need to stop selecting for increased milk production, slow the > rate of growth of their broilers and be content with the current number of > piglets produced per sow we run the risk of being viewed by producers as > having crossed over to the 'dark side'. You may be correct in what you > say in regards to the welfare issues and the path that should be followed, > but if you say it wrong or come across too judgemental I am certain many > producer groups in our country will not give you a second chance to say it > again! I believe there is a very fine line between leading and working > with the industry versus being viewed as 'one of THOSE people' by the > producers. > > I have tried to think of the various ways that an industry could be led to > adopt more welfare friendly procedures. Let's take one example, such as > battery cages for hens, where a more friendly welfare system might be > something other than battery cages. There are several possible > approaches, some with more promise than others. > > Through government and legislation you could work towards a ban on battery > cages! There is some logic to that approach because producers claim that > the alternative systems put them at an economic disadvantage; so you might > think that if a battery cage ban was legislated then at least there would > be an even playing field for all producers. This might sound logical, but > no producer group wants that approach. This is not leading an industry; > this would be forcing an industry. In the end you simple divide people > further and as a scientist promoting an alternative system you will end up > looking like a bad guy in the eyes of the producers. > > Could you promote an alternative systems approach just through > salesmanship alone? You may gain the attention of a few innovative > producers. However, if you do convince them to use an alternate system and > in fact put them at an economic disadvantage you have simply succeeded in > helping to weed out the welfare-sympathetic producers. > > Do you think scientific findings could shift the industry to move away > from battery cages voluntarily? What information could you come up with > that they do not already know that would convince them to phase out the > battery cage and adopt an alternative system? I can not think of any! > Producers already know the battery cage system 'works' for them for a > number of reasons (right or wrong). More science will not change too many > minds. > > The only way that I see the egg producing industry, let's say in Canada, > to voluntarily move away from battery cages towards alternative systems is > through labelling. Label every egg carton as to the type of system the > eggs were produced and then you stand a chance of shifting an industry's > mentality. You also give consumers the chance to support the type of > industry that fits their conscience and pocket book. You give scientists > the chance to develop alternative systems and prove the merits and > disadvantages of the systems. Consumers can use the science to help > formulate their conscience and producers can use the science to help use > the systems they choose to operate. In this approach scientists do not > have to be bad guys and systems are not shoved down producers throats. > Welfare groups can do their campaigning and dress in chicken costumes to > shame people into choosing a particular type of egg that meets the welfare > group's standards. Battery cage advocates can talk food safety, economic > benefits and farmers-know-best jargon! Everybody should be happy with > this approach! Of course you may scream, "Stookey, what about the > chickens? While you wait to let the market place move the industry > millions of chickens suffer! Blah, blah,blah!" The egg producing industry > did not adopt battery cages overnight, nor without the market place > forcing their hand. Let the market place help evolve the industry again > through the purchase power of consumers just as it did throughout the > entire history of the industry. The chickens can survive another few > years (most of the chickens are not aware that there is an alternative > system out there - so we ought to have some more time before the chickens > really get mad at us). If the consumer can buy dolphin-free tuna because > of labeling and eventually shape how tuna are caught, I do not see why > consumers can not buy non-battery cage eggs and have the same effect - if > it is judged by the bulk of society to be the morally (or politically) > correct thing to do. Some in the industry will argue, "But scientifically > we can not tell the difference between an egg laid by a chicken in a > battery cage from the one coming from an alternate system. Do you want us > to tell the consumer every feed ingredient too?" The consumer doesn't > want to know everything! As an example, they don't care if the tuna were > caught using a 2 man rowboat or an ocean trawler or whether the fish was a > 50 lb or a 500 lb tuna. They don't care if tuna taste the same regardless > of the net they were caught in. Some consumers just want to know that > their tuna was caught without dolphins drowning in the nets. The tuna > industry is smart enough to figure out what the consumer wants. The > agricultural industry may benefit from a similar approach. No producer > should fear such an approach if they are convinced they are using the best > system. > > Unfortunately, I do not believe every welfare issue can be solved through > labeling. Such things as castration, dehorning, branding, tail docking, > beak trimming, etc. are not items that are going to be listed on each > package. Collectively, each procedure adds up, but not to the point that > every consumer wants to know or cares what technique or procedure the > animal was exposed to during its life. However, ethically it seems there > ought to be a move towards livestock industries adopting those procedures > and techniques that we know are more welfare friendly. Again I do not > believe in legislating these procedures. I really think we have to work > towards a change in tradition and a change in heart before these things > will come to pass. Through education and information we can gradually > move industries in the right direction. It will be a long and continuous > struggle to change producers' beliefs and lifestyle just as so many other > things in life tend to be difficult to change. Many people do not look > after their own health and welfare even though they have conclusive proof > that certain lifestyles have a negative impact. Not until you change > peoples beliefs do you make much progress. You change people's beliefs by > working with them and having them trust in you. I beleive we often run the > risk of lossing the producers' trust if we are not careful how we deliver > the message. > > Even the following statement by Mike (which echoes things I have probably > said at one time or another) is a dangerous way to think or express > ourselves because it could easily be construed as judgemental or the > expressed opinions of an outsider looking in. It doesn't build trust > between scientists and producers. > > > (much deleted) > > > I do believe, though, that producers could be more > > open to such initiatives (such as development of alternative housing) - > > could indeed take such initiatives themselves - rather than resisting > > them, which seems to be the common pattern. (some deleted) Mike > > > > My veterinarian colleagues in my department face a similar problem in > obtaining compliance among their clients. The most effective > veterinarians get compliance by working closely with their clients and by > gaining their trust. They have great data, for example, to suggest that > producers should vaccinate their animals, practice good hygiene, use a > certain medication, etc., but compliance comes only after they have gained > the producer's trust. There is a similar lesson in that example for all of > us animal welfare scientists and ethologists working to get compliance on > animal welfare friendly practices. > > Cheers, > > Joe > > -------------------------------- > Joseph M. Stookey > Department of Herd Medicine and Theriogenology > Westen College of Veterinary Medicine > Univesity of Saskatchewan > Saskatoon, Saskatchewan > S7N 5B4 > Canada > From: IN%"ws31@umail.umd.edu" 26-FEB-1999 17:53:04.30 To: IN%"stookey@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" Subj: RE: Fainting goats - so what? On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:10:58 -0600 (CST) joseph.stookey@usask.ca wrote: > I really do not want to reach the day we breed the one > dairy cow that can produce enough milk for all of Saskatoon, but I do not > know what to look for as a reasonable stopping point before we get there! > Nor would I feel comfortable standing up to say, "Okay you dairy producers > - enough is enough", especially when it has always seemed so noble to work > towards better efficiency and production. Joe, I still believe that honesty is always the best policy - at least it is the best strategy in the long term. Let us be honest. What is the definition of "efficiency" that we are using here? We are _not_ talking about true biological efficiency. "Efficiency" as used above is in reference to "maximal" levels of production (per animal) and not "optimal" levels of production - which true efficiency would entail. We in agriculture have basically moved to single trait selection systems. We seek maximum pounds of milk, maximum number of eggs, maximal growth rates, etc. And such production systems are _not_ the most efficient - at least not the most biologically efficient. The most biologically efficient system would strive for the optimal level of milk taking into account the impact on fertility, mastitis, longevity, etc. I believe that we should be telling producers that it is in their individual and collective long-term best interest for agriculture to be based on production systems that are biologically (not just economically) efficient. And I am not talking about lessening the financial return to producers. I strongly disagree with those persons who criticize animal agriculture because it is "profit based." Absolutely it is profit based, and why shouldn't it be so. Is the auto industry not profit based? Is the medical profession not profit based? Animal producers are just as much entitled to financial compensation for their effort as is any other member of society. No - I agree that - we don't tell producers to stop selecting for a given trait. (In fact in a growing number of animal industries, producers have little to no input into how the animals are selected.) But we should acknowledge that if we continue to raise the level of production (through artificial selection, exogenously produced compounds, transgenics or whatever) of a given animal to the point that its mortality, morbidity and(or) production-longevity is affected, then we don't call it greater "efficiency!" I must admit that I don't have much hope that animal agriculture will move quickly away from emphasis on maximal production rates per individual animal. Almost all research efforts in the US are oriented toward continuing more milk per cow, more eggs per hen, more gain per individual, etc. - and this is being driven by both government and industry. I honestly don't believe that a quick solution is to be found. But I do believe that the current policy to reward maximal production per animal is _not_ sustainable. Eventually this must change. I think a lot of producers (and even animal agriculture in general) are going to be severely harmed in the interim. I believe that the sooner producers recognize the detrimental consequences of continued emphasis on maximal production, the sooner a solution will be sought. I think we have an obligation to give producers our honest opinion of where animal agriculture is and where it is tending. ---------------------- W. Ray Stricklin University of Maryland From: IN%"chris.gotman@sympatico.ca" 26-FEB-1999 18:28:18.13 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Only one kid? VIVIAN & MICKEY BREGMAN wrote: << Have you ever seen the old people drive in south Florida? Suicidal behavior. Well after they should not be driving. >> Hmmm, I'll take that, assuming that the impared judgement arises not from synapse loss but from refusal to acknowledge one's limitations. This lack of caution would have to translate into other risky activities as well. sincerely, Chris Gotman Quebec, Canada