From: IN%"ESA017@ESAVAX.EDINBURGH.AC.UK" "MIKE MENDL" 1-JUN-1994 13:06:24.55 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" "APPLIED-ETHOLOGY" CC: Subj: nepotism and reciprocal altruism Dear All, Following Rob Young's message about nepotism, I feel that I need to express my own views on this issue. Nepotism and reciprocal altruism are common in all walks of human life. Favours exchanged between friends are what we all expect in our everyday existence. I think that it is inevitable that this way of conducting affairs will impinge upon science. However, as scientists, we should of course try to be as objective as possible about how we wield any small amount of power that we have (and this extends from refereeing papers to awarding research grants). The question is; are we doing this effectively? There is no simple answer to this. Different people may have vastly different opinions, depending upon their experiences and current position. Personally, I think that applied ethology has no major problems in this area and that the editors of AABS have gone to some lengths to try and select "less well known" people (no offence intended) to contribute to the special issue of the journal (to which Rob refers in his message). This network is also evidence of an attempt to open up broad communication between everyone involved in applied ethology, and so give people who might not always have the opportunity to do so, to express their opinions on any issues. However, I may be being complacent, and I think that it is important for a discussion of the mechanisms by which decisions to invite people to speak or write papers are made, to take place. Jeff Rushen asked for comments on how to organise future AABS special editions, and perhaps this would be a forum for such a discussion. Rob Young's ideas for how to select invited papers could form an interesting start point for this discussion. Only a broad canvasing of opinion will reveal whether there are problems with our current way of operating. Mike Mendl ============================================================================== From: IN%"H.HOPSTER@IVO.AGRO.NL" "Hans Hopster" 7-JUN-1994 00:17:10.08 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: effects of noise in cows Dear networker, This question regards to the fear eliciting characteristics of noise and its effects in cows. As far as I could find in the literature, there is only limited information on this topic. Broucek et al. applied a pure tone of 1000 Hz at an acoustic pressure of 110 dB and found a significant increase in glycaemia, NEFA and creatinin and a marked decrease in the level of haemoglobin. Kovalcik and Sottnik reported that cows show a very significant reaction to a novel 105 dB noise. Responses differed largely between individuals in intensity and duration. Kudryavtzev (1962), based on a large body of research which was carried out in the former USSR, postulated that the keenness of hearing and intensity of visual perception are considerably higher in cattle than in dogs. Although these studies suggest that noise may elicit fear responses in cows, I am interested to hear the opinion of cowboys (and girls) of the network. In the Netherlands, ballooning is becoming a popular sport and dairy farmers worry about their cows getting excited by auditory (heater) and visual stimuli evoked by balloons. First accidents regarding this have already been reported in the news papers. Perhaps the main problem is that balloons mostly approach rather quietly without giving cows the time to prepare themselves. A balloonist, ringing a bell when approaching could avoid these problems (thus creating other problems at the same time). When anybody has relevant information on cows' reaction to noise (in general) and unpredictable novel balloons, please respond. I also welcome any regulations or judge-made law concerning this topic. Hans Hopster, Institute for Animal Science and Health (former IVO-DLO), Zeist =============================================================================== From: IN%"voless@castle.edinburgh.ac.uk" "J Cooper" 7-JUN-1994 01:15:53.91 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Open Debate on use and abuse of nepotism Dear Networkers Does anyone have anything to say about the opinion(s) expressed recently about recipricol altruism in science, and if so is it printable. It strikes me that the issue was worth airing even if the targetting was misdirected and the presentation poor. It has been proposed that open competition for traditionally invited "honours" such as keynote addresses at conferances, or special editions of journals would have three major benefits, namely 1. Current ability rather than past record would be rewarded. 2. Young aspiring and young struggling scientists would get more openings. 3. Standards would rise (as would the credibility of all concerned). Are these desirable? Can peer referal really achieve all the above? Can invitation only be defended? Carpe Deum Jonathan Cooper ============================================================================= From: IN%"bjarne.braastad@nlh10.nlh.no" 7-JUN-1994 04:37:15.63 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Open Debate on use and abuse of nepotism Dear all, The questions which have been put forward about how to select keynote speakers at conferences are important and deserve careful consideration. I am interested in this also because we hope to arrange the ISAE Congress in Norway perhaps in 1998 (how about a congress in the wonderful city of Bergen, with excursion to breathtaking fjords and mountains, and featuring Norwegian culture?). I have earlier been a member of the scientific committee of an international congress (not ethology), and I have also been giving an invited plenary lecture at a congress. With this experience in mind, I am hesitating to support the suggestion of an open invitation to submit keynote papers for several reasons: 1. To write a full paper for a review lecture may be quite a large job. In my contribution I worked with 75 scientific papers for a ten-page review paper about the behaviour of mink and foxes. This took at least 4 weeks' full-time job, probably more. If several 'young aspiring scientists' should do this and only one be selected, this is hardly a sensible use of their working capacity (but they might learn a lot). 2. Another possibility is to submit only abstracts. Then the scientific committee could see how the speaker would treat the theme. But it would not be possible to judge the total quality of the lecture, including selection of examples and scientific level. 3. When the scientific committee invites a keynote speaker (without open invitation), they may be doing so because they want a particular aspect of a scientific theme to be treated by a person they know has the capacity to do this in a satisfactory manner (including quality of presentation). Since congresses are held in different places with different scientific committees, this should ensure that a number of excellent scientists are giving such lectures. 4. Having said this, I am prepared to try an open invitation for a keynote lecture for one of the main themes at the ISAE Congress in Norway (if we get the congress) - perhaps even one based on submitted full papers and one based on abstracts. Afterwards, the scientific committee and the persons submitting papers for this could give an evaluation of the 'test' to the ISAE Council. (Of course the sample size would be too small for a general conclusion, but anyway...) Best regards, Bjarne O. Braastad Dept. of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Norway, Aas, Norway. ============================================================================== From: IN%"bekoffm@spot.Colorado.EDU" "Marc Bekoff" 9-JUN-1994 09:13:39.49 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Putting animals first I have been on this network since 26 April, and while there has been some discussion of substantive issues that center on animal welfare and related matters, there has also, on my view, been far too much discussion of topics on the general network that should be pursued, after their initial posting, between the people involved. A good example is nepotism and what is being all too loosely called 'bribery.' Certainly these are important matters but I think that personal (and sometimes humorous) messages like the one below should be sent between the two people involved. I, and I sure others, am getting tired of logging on to my e-mail account to learn more about animal welfare, only to find extended discussion of matters that have been closed, or at least put to rest by most of the people on the network. A listing of the different names of the people contributing to these discussions is very short and probably represents a very small percentage of people on the network (although I may be wrong because I do not know how many people are signed-on the network). One result of exchanges like the one below and others that really concerns me is that people who want to see what those who are keenly interested in animal welfare are saying will simply conclude 'not much'--based on most of the messages that been widely posted this would be a reasonable conclusion. I think that those of us who spend a great amount of time and energy thinking about animal welfare might be doing our community a disservice by continuing to post 'cute' messages that strongly suggest that we have little else to talk about. This is not the case, of course, but an outsider, especially one who is skeptical about the importance of having on-going, serious, and well-informed open dialogue about animal welfare would be hard pressed to tell colleagues that there is much going on on the network that deals with the many important issues in animal welfare. I realize that this is a personal view, and that these sorts of messages might have little place on a network such as this, but my deep concern for animal welfare, and the possible results of posting cute messages on other matters that in some ways have been beaten to death over the past few weeks, makes me uneasy. Does anyone else agree with me? If mine is a lone or strongly minority view I will hush up. So, let's get on with matters of animal welfare and other important issues, so that the animals don't suffer because of our failure to confront these topics and so that skeptics and others don't conclude that the network really does not contain useful information put forth by those who supposedly are keenly interested in animal welfare. Let's not continue to provide ammunition to those who might use it against us. Sincerely, Marc (Bekoff) PS-If this is abit rough I am sorry--but I hope the message is clear) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-==-=-=-=-=-=-==--==-=-=-=-=-=-=-= On Thu, 9 Jun 1994, JEFF RUSHEN wrote: > Oh Bjarne, one thing I forgot to mention about > the ISAE skiing trip we were discussing. I promised > Dan Weary I would get him an invitation if he did me a > little favour. Can you take care of it? > Thanks, > Jeff > ============================================================================== From: IN%"AG3260000@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA" "LENNOXVILLE" 9-JUN-1994 09:39:02.39 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: NEPOTISM AND THE LUST FOR POWER AT THE ISAE (from JEFF RUSHEN) For participants at the recent Animal Welfare conference in Guelph, one of the highlights was reading the email comedy routine by that well-known on-line comedy duo of `Mendl' and Young. (`Mendl' is not, apparently, to be confused with Mike Mendl). They raise an important issue: how can we ensure that the inevitable self- interest that accompanies human actions be limited so that `younger struggling scientists', like myself, get the recognition that they deserve. Unfortunately, they leave the impression that the ISAE (International Society of Applied Ethology) is a sink of graft and corruption. I believe this is exaggerated, although it would explain why _I_ have never been invited to give a keynote talk. Governmental organizations limit abuse of power by ensuring that power is spread over a number of individuals, rather than being concentrated in the hands of one, and having these individuals elected at short intervals. Powerful scientific organizations like the ISAE generally follow suit. Decisions on behalf of the ISAE are taken by the Council (which we power-conscious Americans call the Executive). All members of the Council must be elected at the annual general meeting (AGM), and every member of the ISAE is eligible to stand. The ISAE does not have levels of membership, and works on the one-person-one vote principle. I suspect that the young and struggling probably make up a majority by now. Office holding members of Council (Presidents, secretaries, editors, treasurers etc.) must be elected EVERY YEAR. The job associated with these positions requires some continuity, so changing the office-holder every year would probably make the society non- functional. Consequently the council adopted the principle of RECOMMENDING for re-election the same person for five years. In the case of the President, this period is two years, since such a powerful position is an obvious attraction for the morally corrupt. Almost always, the Council's recommendation is accepted at the AGM, but I emphasize that this is only a recommendation. If it so wishes, the AGM can throw out all members of council, every year. If you believe that any member of council is abusing his/her position to advance their own interests rather than that of the ISAE, then the soultion is simple: boot them out and elect someone else in their place! Young and `Mendl' indicate three areas in which the aged and entrenched back-scratchers on the Council could indulge their lust for power. In the choice of the David Wood-Gush Memorial lecturers, the ISAE plays no part; we just have to listen to them. I have no idea how the choice is made. Perhaps they chose Ian Duncan because he liberally bribed them with home-distilled Scotch. Perhaps they chose him because he is an excellent speaker, has made a major contribution to the field, and is someone of whom I am sure David Wood-Gush would be proud. (Pssst! Ian! How was that? NOW will you send me my money??). Choice of invited speakers is made by the local organizers of conferences. Before choosing, they ask Council members to recommend names. I do not know if they get many suggestions or how they respond. I think this year`s organizers have made a commendable effort NOT to ask the usual well-known, high status individuals (sorry Per). But I think this is one area where the ISAE council should get more involved, in order to avoid future problems. This is being discussed at the next Council meeting in Foulum so please send us your views. Final decisions about what is published in the Special Issue of AABS is made by the Council and must be approved by the regular editors of Elsevier. In future, I hope these decisions will be more or less finalized at each summer Council meeting so that they can be discussed at the AGM. The first issue was a little unusual since we had very little time to act to ensure that we would have a 1994 issue. Consequently, the matter was discussed only at the regional UK meeting, with minimal input from the ISAE itself. As a result, I was pretty much able to indulge my lust for power and nepotism and invite all those elderly high-status Professors. (For those who dont know the contributors I would estimate that the average age is mid- to late-thirties, although one or two outliers may give a positive skew to the distribution. They include one Ph. D. student, two post-docs, a few young-to-middle-aged hippies, and one full Professor- I think.) Again, I invite everybody, young or old, struggling or nepotistic, to send suggestions for what you would like to see for the next special edition. By all means, give suggestions for contributors. All suggestions will be considered at the Council meeting in Foulum, and the issue will hopefully be discussed at the AGM. Having read Rob Young`s comments, you may be tempted to increase the chance that your suggestion will be accepted by bribing the editor with an offer of an invitation to contribute a paper. A more effective bribe would be to offer to do some of the editorial work involved. When you send in a suggestion, include and sign the following statement. `In the event that my suggestion is rejected, I will not automatically assume, without further evidence, that the Editor of the ISAE is a self-serving, power-crazed nepotist'. Jeff Rushen, Editor ISAE, rushenj@ncccot2.agr.ca fax:1-819-5645507 ============================================================================== From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 9-JUN-1994 10:35:44.48 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: a power-crazed nepotist replies. Hi Everyone, Recently `Ian Duncan' and I, have been discussing the subject of tact and diplomacy in scientists etc. It has come to both of our attentions that the way scientists in any field conduct themselves suggests that they have neither. This often takes the form of making allegations about the motives underlying other people's actions, without any supporting evidence and without giving specifics, imputing these views to a third person, and then broadcasting them over a public email network, which is now read by over 200 people, including deans of University faculties, heads of government research institutes etc., many of whom do not know the people involved, but will no doubt form an opinion based on the information received. It often appears to the not-so-old-and- established struggling editors that such allegations might spring from jealousy rather than from any solid evidence of misdoing (you kick me in the balls and I`ll kick you in yours). Such messages, although perhaps well intentioned and raising important issues, can cause offense when it is implied that people receive invitations to give talks and write papers, not because of the quality of their work, but because they are buddies with someone. The `third person' can also experience considerable anguish worrying about how this could affect their social relationships. (Often this is needless, since it is clear that they have been dropped in the soup). Editors can be particularly pissed off when they are accussed of doing something that they have taken particular pains to avoid. To suggest some ways out of this situation (which I consider very unprofessional and unfair), `Ian Duncan' suggested the following mechanisms that we might use. These are A). decapitation, B). castration without anesthetic, C). suggesting that people give some thought to how they word their complaints before broadcasting them in public. I hope that these suggestions are useful in generating discussion in how to improve our use of the network and avoid insulting others. Jeff Rushen rushenj@ncccot2.agr.ca ============================================================================== From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 9-JUN-1994 10:41:04.73 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: fun and games on the email So. I seem to have gone from being a self-serving, power-crazed nepotist to someone who wastes on-line time by sending "cute" messages. Isnt email fun?! (Who are these guys?). As I lick my dripping wounds recieved from the stern tongue lashing by Marc Bekoff, I would like to make 2 points. 1. The applied-ethology network was set up with the help of the ISAE to not only discuss scientific issues but also as a medium for discussing society affairs. I know many non-members are now on the network, and you are all very welcome. Perhaps we should consider having a separate network purely for ISAE affairs. But until we do, please bear with us when we do discuss matters of the ISAE. I think how to handle nepotism is an important issue for us and I hope Marc Bekoffs comment does not discourage anyone giving their opinion. (Further comments on this topic ARE welcome). 2. Folks, loosen up! Relax. Its a nice day. Jeff Rushen (PS Bjarne, strike Marc Bekoff off the ski list will you.) ============================================================================== From: IN%"AG150AB@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA" 9-JUN-1994 18:13:58.62 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: in favour of nepotism.... As part of science's down-trodden youth, I would like to say a word in favour of nepotism. In my dark past as a behavioural ecologist I have found that silver-back types (editors, reviewers, conference organizers, etc.) have been extraordinarily generous and open to relatively unknown upstarts (rather, it's when people get to know you that things get harder, harder...). In my recent experience working with applied ethologists I have found a similar generosity. As I have only been in the field a short time, this help cannot have been due to long standing friendships with those in power. Similarly, I have piteously little to offer the powerful in return. This forces me to conclude that editors etc. must truly be interested in new people and what they have to say, and be willing to go to the extra effort to encourage them... Dan Weary P.S. Rob - if this doesn't earn me an lots of invitations I don't know what will... ============================================================================= From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 10-JUN-1994 10:26:29.75 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: BRAZIL! (WARNING: Parts of this message may be "cute") As one of the power-wielding who expect an invitation, it goes without saying that I support Adroaldo`s suggestion that we consider an ISAE meeting in Brazil. I think it would be a good way of breaking the Europe/North America domination of scientific meetings. I think it would be useful if Adroaldo or someone else could give us an idea of what research was being done there are and who the main groups are. Perhaps it would also be useful to know about research being done in the neighbouring South American countries. Does anyone have any information about this? (Please dont let the recent complaints inhibit you sending this information over the network. This is one reason why the network was set up.) My enthusiasm for Brazil was somewhat tempered when I read a paper from Brazil in the February edition of AABS, with the title `Domestic cat predation on vampire bats while foraging on goats, pigs, cows and human beings'(!). The conclusion was `that man is only an alternative prey for the vampire when livestock are very scarce.' Do you think we could hold the Brazil meeting on or near a farm? On the subject of nepotism, I think some of the resentment felt by younger scientsist MIGHT be justified (although I was very pleased to hear from Dan Weary that this experience is not universal). I think one problem is the difficulty that younger scientists have in getting `noticed'. Many scientific societies have ways of drawing attention to younger scientists but I think the ISAE is deficient in this regard. For example, I dont believe that we even offer reduced subscription rates for students (apologies if I am wrong). I know the ISAE does not have much money but perhaps some could be spent helping students attend meetings. This might be more useful than sending people to Strasbourg! One mechansism we could consider is to have a paper session restricted to student papers. We could even have a contest and a prize. Please send us your thoughts on this matter. Again, DONT be inhibited about sending them over the network, and DONT be inhibited about attempting a little humour. I, for one, still appreciate it. Jeff Rushen ============================================================================== From: IN%"ALund@ZI.KU.DK" "Lund, Anders {ZI}" 14-JUN-1994 02:23:02.34 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: scientist welfare Dear Beckoff, McMahon and others! Basically, I can only agree that the net-work should be used to exchange opinions on topics of scientific and general nature. During the time I have been loggen on to the net-work this has certainly also been the case, in particular regarding the welfare discussion. Although I can certainly understand that someone who has logged on resently will feel somewhat alienated to the silly comments and scenarios suggested by some of the "old timers", I am of the opinion that there must be room for such extravaganza on the e-mail for several reasons: 1. In most, most, of the messages there have been valid points. 2. The e-mail is a new and wonderful media and it is much to early to start censorship, as of now we should only rely on members self-restriction. 3. The nature of this media is informal and it should be kept that way. It is the first time EVER that anyone can get in tuch with every college in the whole scientific community, all over the world, on a chatting level. I find that absolutely fantastic. 4. You are free to skip any message you find uninteresting. 5. A good snigger or even giggle at the begining of the day is a fine start. 6. Any "outsider" logged on to the net-work should rejoice that the international society of applied ethologists is a happy and resourceful bunch with capacity for more than suffering with the animals (even if SOME seem to have too much time at their disposal for chatting). In Denmark we are blessed with an engineer who spent a lot of his time making "bons mots", called "gruk(s)". One goes like this: Den der tager spoeg for spoeg og alvor kun alvorligt, han og hun har faktisk fattet, begge dele daarligt For those of you who are not quite familiar with the guttural language called danish, the meaning is approximately that whoever who always takes fun for fun and serious things seriously has not quite understood either. For a serious and entertaining e-mail net-work Anders Lund =============================================================================== From: IN%"voless@castle.edinburgh.ac.uk" "J Cooper" 14-JUN-1994 10:48:28.28 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ` ` More science/less tripe Dear all And especially The Regulator In response to recent calls for less pollution of the network in the form of idle chatter, here's some real SCIENCE. You may have thought this one was dead and buried, but its still full of life and clawing its way out of the ground. Q. Is stereotypic behaviour a coping mecanism? Or more generally How do abnormal activities reflect an animla's well-being? A. Depends on what research you've been reading. Here's a few throw away lines for the uninitiated. 1. Stereotypic behaviour has been used to describe a wide range of activities. There is no guarantee that structural similarity reflect equivalent controlling mecanisms. So the causes and effects of repetitive, invariant, inappropriate activities may vary between species, between individuals and even within individuals. 2. Definitions ("stereotypic", "abnormal", "coping", " well-being") are relevant to this discussion as elsewhere, but what is more important is to relate behaviour p[atterns (stereotypic or otherwise) to objective and measurable indicators of well-being, erm.... whatever that is. 3. Both physiological and "whole-animal" (behavioural) indeces of welfare have been used to investigate sterotypies and welfare. These have generally found associations between "poor" welfare and the tendancy to develope stereotypies. Stereotypies can be induced by thwarting appropriate responses, and have been associated with high levals of corticosteroids. =============================================================================== From: IN%"voless@castle.edinburgh.ac.uk" "J Cooper" 14-JUN-1994 11:18:47.62 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: And there's more Apologies for the break in communication. Someone more important than me wanted to use this terminal Stereotypies and Coping cont. 4. Evidence for and against a coping effect is more contentious. Work with physiological correlates of chronic and acute stress or is that arousal have sometimes got an effect and sometimes not. People that have a good idea of what goes on inside animals will know more about this than me. Work on the effect of sterotyping on behavioural responses is sparse (some bloke working with voles, I believe). Although an effect was found, i.e. voles that developed stereotypies became less choosey in their environmental preference, the results are open to interpretation. Interpretation that this effect is not incontestable evidence for coping is best left to the critics themselves (probably). Usefully alternative explanations can be tested by investigating the effect of stereotypind on behavioural demand functions, and on perception of environmental stimuli. 5.Lastly Parallel studies in Psychitry and Human Psychology, have shed some light on the effect of stereotyping on the performer's subjective experience of their environment. These have generaaly pointed to obsessive, compulsive or stereotypic activities acting as a means of "coping with environments where the actual experience does not correspond to expectations". Obviously psychiatry gives different meanings to words commonly used in animal behaviour, and the response of schizophrenics are not to be trusted because they're mad, (no offence intended), but it is plausible that animals that can not articulate their feelings, but with similar means of controlling behaviour, may experience similar emotive states to human stereotypers in environments that do not meet up with their expectations. Hope this was enuf science and not too much waffle in betweens. Sincerely Jonathan ============================================================================= From: IN%"NEWBERRY@BCRSAG.AGR.CA" 15-JUN-1994 13:12:31.69 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Abstracts 1 - ISAE North American Regional Meeting, Guelph ABSTRACTS OF 8 ORAL PAPERS (more to follow), AND LIST OF PARTICIPANTS, AT THE FIRST NORTH AMERICAN REGIONAL MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR APPLIED ETHOLOGY, JUNE 5, 1994, UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH, GUELPH, ONTARIO, CANADA Not for publication. All rights reserved by the authors. Contact the authors directly for permission to refer to the information presented here. --------- ABSTRACTS --------- VOCALISATIONS BY PIGLETS DURING CASTRATION: PUNISHING PAIN OR PURELY PROTEST? L.A. Braithwaite, D.M. Weary and D.G. Fraser, Centre for Food and Animal Research, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0C6 (BRAITHWAITEL@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA) During the 19th C, the use of anaesthetic was predicated on the belief that sensitivity to pain varied according to the social status of the sufferer. At the bottom of the hierarchy, along with the lower classes, was the place of animals (Phillips, 1993). The use of anaesthetic is now habitual for veterinary animal surgery. However, there is growing concern about invasive procedures, such as piglet castration, that take place on farms without the benefit of anaesthetic. Piglets can be extremely vocal when handled and a commonly-held belief contends that since handling alone elicits so much calling, the actual castration can't be much worse. The aim of this experiment was to use vocalisations produced by piglets to distinguish between the distress caused by the handling necessary to perform a castration and the castration itself. Male piglets (n=26) were obtained from 13 litters (2 pigs/litter) and taken to a visually and acoustically isolated room. Treatments consisted of castration (C) and sham-castration (S-C). The C treatment was divided into 6 stages: "Restraint", "Alcohol", "Incision 1", "Incision 2", "Cut spermatic cords", and "Disinfectant". The S-C treatment also had 6 stages but during the "Incision 1&2" the scalpel was inverted and the dull edge of the blade traced down the scrotum and during the "Cut cords" the piglet was restrained for an equivalent amount of time. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups during the first 3 stages of the treatments. Rate of vocalisation (calls/s) was significantly greater in C vs S- C piglets during "Incision 2" (0.9+0.2 vs 0.5+0.1), "Cut spermatic cords" (1.1+0.1 vs 0.7+0.2) and "Disinfectant" (0.5+0.1 vs 0.3+0.07). During the "Cut cords" stage C piglets produced calls of significantly higher frequency (4483+209 vs 3482+412 Hz), longer duration (650+53 vs 446+65 ms) and larger amplitude (8 dB greater) than S-C piglets. In conclusion, castrated piglets produced more calls during the last 3 stages of castration and they produced louder, longer and higher frequency calls when the spermatic cords were cut. These results suggest that while the handling during castration is stressful, the actual castration procedure and particularly the cutting of the spermatic cords is significantly more distressing. Phillips, M.T., 1993. Savages, drunks and lab animals: The researcher's perception of pain. Society and Animals, 1 (1): 61-81. SCIENCE, VALUES, AND ANIMAL WELFARE David Fraser, Centre for Food and Animal Research, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0C6 (AG150AB@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA) Confusion often arises because the role of values in scientific approaches to animal welfare has been inadequately articulated. Different workers tacitly disagree over whether animal welfare should be treated as (1) a single, measurable attribute, (2) a single attribute that cannot be measured directly but can be estimated by combining contributing attributes, or (3) a concept involving multiple attributes whose relative importance cannot be established in an entirely objective way. Workers in the first category propose single, objective measures of welfare, such as longevity and levels of stress-related hormones; however, this approach rests fundamentally on judgements, which are not purely objective, about the relative importance of different factors for an animal's quality of life. Studies of animal preferences and motivation are sometimes seen as an objective way to weight different attributes according to the animals' own priorities, but there are numerous technical and fundamental limitations to this approach. Animal welfare is best conceived as a concept incorporating multiple attributes, with considerable consensus over certain general principles but disagreement over how the principles should be applied. Because the various attributes cannot be combined in a purely objective way, science is limited in its ability to determine the "overall" welfare of an animal and to compare welfare in disparate environments. Instead of attempting to "measure" animal welfare, the role of science should be seen as identifying, rectifying, and preventing animal welfare problems. DIURNAL ACTIVITY PATTERNS OF A PAIR OF CAPTIVE RED WOLVES A.S. Moore and R.J. Woods, Illinois State University, Department of Agriculture, Campus Box 5020, Normal, IL 61790-5020, USA (AMOORE@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu) A century ago, thousands of red wolves (Canis rufus) ranged over the southeastern United States. However, by 1980 they were believed to be extinct in the wild. Successful captive breeding has increased the population of red wolves in the recovery program to approximately 300. Some of these wolves are housed in zoological parks and could potentially be selected for release. This study aimed to characterize the diurnal activities and 24-hour feeding patterns of a pair of captive red wolves. Observations of a breeding pair, consisting of one 2.5 year old male and a 3.5 year old female, commenced after a four month acclimatization period to the 46 m x 31 m outside enclosure with adjacent kennel (4 m x 2.5m). The wolves had ad libitum access to dry dog food and water in the kennel. Daytime observations (06:00 - 18:00 h) were conducted at 3-week intervals from October 1993 through March 1994 (9 observations). Time budgets for lying, sitting, standing, walking and stereotyped pacing were determined via instantaneous sampling at 1-min intervals. Feeding patterns were obtained from video recordings of the kennel area during four separate 72-hour periods. The diurnal activity of the male and female was highly synchronized with respect to each other. Peak diurnal activity occurred during the initial 3-h period after sunrise (06:00-09:00) with a second peak during the 3-h period before sunset (15:00-18:00). Both wolves were largely inactive during mid-day (11:00-15:00 h) spending nearly 60% of the time lying. Stereotyped pacing was most evident in the female who spent 18.4% of the time between 06:00 and 10:00 h engaged in this activity. Repetitive pacing in the male peaked between 09:00-11:00 h at 9.0%. Wolves visited the kennel to eat several small meals throughout the day, averaging 18.5 feeding visits per wolf with a mean daily duration of 10.5 min. The greatest frequency of feeding visits occurred from 15:00-18:00 h, averaging 6.7 visits per wolf with a second peak of 3.9 occurring between 00:00 and 03:00 h. Wolves were observed drinking water 13.3 times per day in a temporal pattern similar to that of feeding. Non-feeding/non-drinking visits were much less frequent averaging 4.0 visits per day for a total of 0.5 min per day. Neither wolf was ever observed resting in the kennel. Activity data from this preliminary study will be used to aid in the development and assessment of an enriched environment for captive red wolves. USE OF COVER BY DOMESTIC FOWL Ruth C. Newberry1 and David M. Shackleton2, 1Agriculture & Agri- food Canada, Research Station, P.O. Box 1000, Agassiz, British Columbia, Canada V0M 1A0 (NEWBERRY@BCRSAG.AGR.CA) and 2Department of Animal Science, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4 (SHAC@UNIXG.UBC.CA) Cover is structural feature of the environment which animals may use to conceal themselves from predators or aggressive conspecifics or to gain shelter from inclement weather. Cover may also form a physical barrier limiting further progression. To investigate factors influencing use of cover by domestic fowl, trials were conducted with two strains of domestic fowl, each utilizing two rectangular indoor pens containing approximately 110 chickens. Food, perches, a dust bath and a brooder were located at each end of the pen, and water was provided at the centre. The pen centre was divided into eight quadrants, four with cover and four without cover. Cover was provided by a vertical plastic sheet in the centre of the quadrant. The four plastic sheets varied in visual continuity of cover: clear plastic, four vertical green stripes painted on the clear plastic, eight such stripes, and solid green. The location and orientation of cover structures (at right angles to the air flow across the pen or at right angles to bird movement between the resources at the ends of the pen and the water in the centre) was changed weekly according to a Latin square design. Scan samples of quadrant use were made weekly when the chickens were 3 to 7 weeks of age. More chickens used quadrants with, than without, cover (P<0.01) and a higher proportion rested and preened in quadrants with, than without, cover (P<0.05). There was no increase in use of cover over the four week period concurrent with the development of agonistic behaviour, suggesting that use of cover was not motivated by attempts to avoid aggressive conspecifics. The orientation of cover did not influence use of cover (P>0.05) suggesting that cover was not being used to gain shelter from cool draughts across the pen or because the cover physically blocked the movement of birds between the ends and centre of the pen. Use of cover was affected by the degree of visual continuity of cover, with greatest use being made of quadrants containing the cover structure with eight stripes followed by the structure with four stripes (P<0.05), providing further evidence against shelter seeking or physical barrier effects (e.g. bunching up behind a poorly visible barrier) as the prime factors influencing use of cover. The results support the hypothesis that, despite domestication and indoor housing, use of cover by the chickens in this study occurred primarily as an anti- predator response. PARENT-OFFSPRING CONFLICT IN PIGS E.A. Pajor1,2, D. Fraser2 and D.L. Kramer1, 1Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1B1, Canada and 2Centre for Food and Animal Research, Bldg. 94, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6, Canada (PAJORE@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA) Preliminary results of an experiment to test parent-offspring conflict theory are presented. Parent-offspring conflict theory predicts that sows and piglets should be in conflict over the amount of parental investment (PI) in the litter as the lactation advances. We tested this hypothesis and examined potential tactics used by piglets to increase PI and potential counter-tactics by the sow. 24 multiparous sows and litters were assigned to either (1) a pen where the sow and litter were confined together throughout a 5 week lactation or (2) a "get-away" pen where the sow could leave the litter at will. In the confined treatment, sows lost significantly more weight during lactation and took longer to return to oestrus after weaning. In the "get-away" treatment, piglets gained less weight presumably because of lower milk production, but ate significantly more creep feed. Piglets in get- away pens vocalized at the barrier to the absent mother and had a higher rate of contact with the sow when she was present. Sows in "get-away" pens gradually increased the amount of time they spent away from their offspring and gradually decreased their nursing frequency. Piglets of confined mothers spent more total time in contact with the sow and sows lay on their udder more in an apparent attempt to reduce offspring stimulation. Thus piglets in confined pens and sows in "get-away" pens can bias milk production in their favour. Maternal control of milk output favours both farm animal welfare and production efficiency. INFLUENCE OF HUMAN ASSISTANCE AT PARTURITION ON COW/CALF BONDING IN BEEF CATTLE J. M. Stookey, J.V. Bailey and J. R. Campbell, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 0W0, Canada (STOOKEY@SASK.USASK.CA) Information was collected on 205 beef cattle dystocias, assisted by faculty and staff veterinarians during two calving seasons (1993, 1994), to determine the impact of Caesarian operations and assisted vaginal deliveries on subsequent cow/calf bonding. The bulk of the cases were performed at the WCVM clinic (101 Casesarians, 63 vaginal deliveries) and required the producer to load and transport the dam to and from the clinic, while the remainder of the cases (13 Caesarians, 28 vaginal deliveries) were attended on-farm by field service veterinarians. For each case, the owner provided information on the age of female (cow or heifer), breed, and duration of the dystocia from time of detection to assistance. In addition, the attending veterinarian assigned a subjective temperament score (scale 1-3) and condition score (scale 1-5) to the female. Also noted was the type of delivery (Caesarian or traction), the duration of surgery, and whether or not the calf was placed in front of the female during closure of the incision. A subjective vigor score (scale 1-3) was given for each calf delivered. Veterinarians recorded whether or not they observed the female lick the calf prior to their departure and were asked to give their opinion on whether they thought the dam was accepting her calf. The owner was telephoned 5 - 10 days following the delivery of the calf to provide follow-up information. The owner was asked if the dam had showed any signs of rejecting the calf following delivery, if the dam had required physical restraint to allow the calf to suckle, and whether the calf was being reared by the natural mother. Following the calving season in 1994, each owner was again contacted to determine calving statistics for the entire herd and to determine the total number of incidences of cows and heifers rejecting their calves following parturition. A total of 34 out of the 205 females assisted by WCVM staff were reported by owners as having shown initial signs of rejecting their calf and required some intervention (eg. restraining cow to allow calf to suckle) to facilitate bonding and acceptance. The incidence of rejection was not related to breed, temperament of dam, condition score of the dam, presentation of the calf during closure of the incision, vigor of the calf, nor year of study. A higher percentage of dams showed signs of rejecting their calf following a Caesarian operation (23%) compared to dams with assisted vaginal deliveries (9%) (P<.01). Location of delivery (clinic vs field) was not significant. Regardless of delivery type, assisted heifers were more likely than cows to show initial signs of rejecting their calf (P< .05). Cows having a Caesarian section were six times more likely to reject their calf than cows with an assisted vaginal delivery (P<.01). The two types of assistance on heifers were not significantly different at influencing the high rate of calf rejections by heifers (5 out of 19 vaginal deliveries rejected; 22 out of 63 C-sections rejected). Surprisingly, the clinician's assessment that the female was accepting the calf or the observation of the female licking the calf were not reliable predictors of the dam's acceptance of the calf, as determined by the owner and relayed to us in the follow-up survey. It is possible that other factors or events which occured after the veterinarian judged acceptance (eg. transportation, movement away from the birth site, level of post-delivery pain) influenced maternal behaviour and bonding. The herd mates of our case subjects in 1994 had a considerably lower level of rejections among the cows and heifers (8 out of 1,919; 13 out of 564, respectively) compared to the cows and heifers assisted by WCVM veterinarians at parturition (P<.0001). Until more information is known about the human, animal and environmental factors which may contribute to rejection of the calf following assistance at parturition, additional attention may be required to facilitate cow/calf bonding among assisted females. CALLING BY DOMESTIC PIGLETS: HONEST SIGNALLING AND ANIMAL WELFARE Daniel M. Weary and David Fraser, Centre for Food and Animal Research, Building 94, Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, K1A 0C6, Canada (WEARYD@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA) We performed three manipulations on piglets to determine if differences in calling can indicate differences in need. In all cases, the aim was to manipulate the piglet's need for the sow's attention. In the first manipulation we selected a "thriving" piglet (i.e. the piglet with the heaviest weight and most rapid weight gain) and a "non-thriving" one (lightest and slowest weight gain) from each of 15 litters. The two piglets were removed from the sow and litter and recorded for 13 min in separate isolated enclosures. For the second manipulation, two piglets of intermediate weight and weight gain were selected from 15 litters, and were removed from the sow during nursing. The "unfed" piglet was removed just before the milk ejection and the "fed" one just after receiving milk. Both were recorded as in the first manipulation. In the third manipulation, we again selected two similar piglets from each litter but recorded them in different enclosures: a "warm" enclosure at 30 C, and a "cool" enclosure at 13 C. "Non-thriving" and "unfed" and "cool" piglets called more, used more high frequency calls, used longer calls, and used calls that rose more in frequency than their "thriving", "fed" and "warm" litter-mates. We argue that if a piglet's calls provide reliable information about their need for the sow's resources, then this calling behaviour can be used as a measure of its welfare. Not all animal signals will be useful in evaluating animal welfare: only "honest" signals of need. These results are consistent with theoretical models of honest signalling. HIGH-FREQUENCY VS LOW-FREQUENCY FLUORESCENT LIGHTS: HENS DO NOT MIND THE FLICKER Tina M. Widowski and Ian J.H. Duncan, Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1 (TWIDOWSKI@APS.UoGuelph.CA) Compact fluorescent lights are considered economical replacements for the incandescent lighting traditionally used in poultry houses. However, because the Critical Fusion Frequency of chickens has been measured at 120 Hz, it has been suggested that the birds may be able to detect the flicker of fluorescent lights powered by standard magnetic ballasts, and that they may find the flicker aversive. We measured the preferences of sixteen light hybrid laying hens for light produced by fluorescent tubes powered by high-frequency ballasts which flicker at 30,000 Hz over light from similar fluorescent tubes powered by standard low-frequency ballasts which flicker at 120 Hz. The birds were tested individually in a two-room testing chamber in which each room could be illuminated by either light source. The spectral distributions and levels of illumination in the two rooms were carefully matched and both rooms contained feed, water, and a nesting area. Overhead video cameras recorded the position and behaviour of the birds during a 6-hour test period on each of two days. The light sources in the rooms were switched on the second test day to balance for any preferences the birds may have had for chamber room. On both test days, the birds spent similar amounts of time in fluorescent light powered by high-frequency and low-frequency ballasts (P > .10). When data from both test days were combined, the birds spent on average 44.8% of time in light from high-frequency ballasts, 48.2% in light from low-frequency ballasts and 7.0% in the central compartment away from either light source. The frequency distributions of individual activities indicated that the birds performed all activities in light powered by both types of ballasts. Although the chamber rooms were nearly identical, the birds did exhibit a preference for one of the rooms, spending about 80% of the time in it (P < .01). We can conclude that at the illumination levels in this experiment, the hens did not perceive the flicker of standard fluorescent light or they perceived it but did not find it aversive. -------------------- LIST OF PARTICIPANTS -------------------- Jack Albright Purdue University Sella Balzer Foundation for Animal Care Saskatchewan Kathy Belbib-Chaltas University of Guelph Denna Benn University of Guelph Renee Bergeron Prairie Swine Centre, Saskatoon Patty Boylen Toronto Hospital Leah Braithwaite Centre for Food & Animal Research, Ottawa Nathalie Caza Agriculture & Agri-food Canada, Lennoxville, Quebec Laurie Connor University of Manitoba Anne-Marie de Passille Agriculture & Agri-food Canada, Lennoxville, Quebec Karen Davis United Poultry Concerns, Inc., Potomac, MD Gordon Doonan Agriculture & Agri-food Canada, Nepean, Ontario Esther Duschinsky University of Guelph Ian Duncan University of Guelph Yousry El-Hommosany University of Maryland Raymond Fenton Alberta Agriculture Mary Finelli Humane Society of the United States Nancy Fiscus University of Maryland David Fraser Centre for Food & Animal Research, Ottawa Deanne Fulawka University of Manitoba Harold Gonyou Prairie Swine Centre, Saskatoon Kannan Govindarajan University of Maryland Moira Harris Prairie Swine Centre, Saskatoon Frank Hurnik University of Guelph Gertrude Hurnik University of Guelph Helen Johnson University of Maryland Susan Kitchen Alberta Foundation for Animal Care Clare Knightly University of Maryland Anne Malleau University of Guelph Zhensheng Lou University of Guelph Joy Mench University of Maryland Barry Milligan Centre for Food & Animal Research, Ottawa Aaron Moore Illinois State University Cassandra Moore University of Maryland Julie Morrow-Tesch Centre for Research on Well-being of Food Animals, ARS/USDA Heather Nagel Ontario Ministry of Agriculure, Food & Rural Affairs Ruth Newberry Agriculture & Agri-food Canada, Agassiz, British Columbia Ed Pajor Centre for Food & Animal Research, Ottawa Linda Panning University of Guelph Peter Phillips Centre for Food & Animal Research, Ottawa Carlos Pinheiro Machado University of Guelph Guylaine Richer Agriculture & Agri-food Canada, Lennoxville, Quebec Suzanne Robert Agriculture & Agri-food Canada, Lennoxville, Quebec Jeff Rushen Agriculture & Agri-food Canada, Lennoxville, Quebec Karen Schwartzkopf University of Saskatchewan Joseph Stookey University of Saskatchewan Ray Stricklin University of Maryland Janice Swanson Kansas State University Allison Taylor University of Guelph Tarjei Tenneson Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Truro, NS Dan Weary Centre for Food & Animal Research, Ottawa Mervyn Wetzstein British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food Tina Widowski University of Guelph Jian-Zheng Zhou (Zhou) University of Maryland Jon Watts University of Saskatchewan Bruce Webster Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Truro, NS Xu-Shen Zhou (Jason) University of Maryland ============================================================================= From: IN%"NEWBERRY@BCRSAG.AGR.CA" 20-JUN-1994 17:56:07.31 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Abstracts 2 - ISAE North American Regional Meeting POSTING NO. 2: ABSTRACTS OF 6 MORE ORAL PAPERS AND 1 POSTER AT THE FIRST NORTH AMERICAN REGIONAL MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR APPLIED ETHOLOGY, JUNE 5, 1994, UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH, GUELPH, ONTARIO, CANADA Not for publication. All rights reserved by the authors. Contact the authors directly for permission to refer to the information presented here. ----------- ORAL PAPERS ----------- THE MOTIVATION OF NON-NUTRITIVE SUCKING IN CALVES (BOS TAURUS) Anne Marie de Passille and Jeff Rushen, Research Station, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lennoxville, Quebec, J1M 1Z3 Canada (AG3260000@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA) Although non-nutritive sucking is common, the motivation is poorly understood. The motivation of non-nutritive sucking in dairy calves was examined by independently varying milk intake and prior opportunities for non-nutritive sucking and observing calves sucking at a non-functional teat. Small amounts of milk elicited non-nutritive sucking, suggesting a relatively inflexible response to the taste of milk. Reinforcement from milk was not needed to maintain sucking. When calves were given less than the normal volume of milk, their subsequent non-nutritive sucking was not affected, but calves on a low feed level sucked more, and those that missed a meal increased sucking after a subsequent meal. When calves sucked after ingesting milk they sucked less after immediately ingesting further milk. Thus, sucking motivation is reduced more by sucking behaviour than by milk intake, although it is not completely independent of hunger. Deprivation of non- nutritive sucking after one meal did not increase sucking 40 min later or sucking after subsequent meals. Thus, sucking motivation does not continue to accumulate across bouts. Non-nutritive sucking by precocial calves has some, but not all of the properties of Lorenzian processes. PIGLET SAVAGING BY GILTS AND SOWS: SOME POSSIBLE CAUSES Moira Harris and Harold Gonyou, Prairie Swine Centre Inc., and Department of Animal & Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada, S7N 0W0 (HARRISM@SASK.USASK.CA) Piglet savaging occurs when aggressive behaviour is displayed by a sow or gilt towards her newborn offspring. In most cases, no injury occurs; however, piglets may be severely injured or killed, and dead piglets are sometimes eaten or partly eaten. Usually, the first piglet(s) only are affected, but multiple savaging attempts may be made which result in the death of the whole litter. Aggressive behaviour usually stops once one or two piglets have successfully suckled. Savaging is more common in gilts than sows, possibly due to immaturity or inexperience. However, since most producers select against savaging gilts, the importance of the "gilt factor" is hard to estimate. Estimates of incidence of attacks vary widely, from 0.2-0.3% (Backstrom, 1973) to 89% gilts and 20-25% sows (English, Smith & MacLean, 1977). Differences in definitions of savaging, as well as minor occurrences escaping attention, may be two reasons for this disparity. Savaging behaviour has only been observed in intensive agriculture situations. This may be due to inadequate opportunity to observe farrowings in feral or free-ranging conditions; alternatively, the behaviour may be induced in intensive animals by some aspect of management or environment. Very little is known about the causes of piglet-directed aggression in sows. Genetic studies have shown the behaviour to be moderate to highly heritable (0.4-0.9, Knap & Merks, 1987). Timing of hormonal changes around parturition may facilitate aggression. Oxytocin suppression, caused by stress, may delay or prolong farrowing, and may also predispose to aggressive behaviour. Many environmental factors may be implicated in savaging behaviour: for example, type of accommodation, disturbance at farrowing, and physical factors such as temperature and humidity. "Maternal" temperament in gilts is another possible field of investigation. Lack of suitable personality traits in some feral gilts might lead them to fail to reproduce; managed gilts, however, will be mated regardless of temperament. POST-HATCHING BEHAVIOUR OF TURKEY POULTS: LIFE WITHOUT MOM Linda Panning and Ian J.H. Duncan, Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 (IDuncan@APS.UoGuelph.CA) "Starve-out" is defined as the failure of turkey poults to initiate feeding and is claimed to cause 2-6% mortality of commercially-kept poults in the first eight days of life. The cause of starve-out is unknown but it has frequently been blamed on the poults' inability to learn to feed. The general approach was to observe and record the feeding behaviour of 200 individually-marked, one-day-old, male, Hybrid poults from their first exposure to food and water for 7 days. The birds were kept in groups of 10 and there were 4 groups in each of 5 repetitions. The birds were kept in constant light for 7 days. Latency for each individual to initiate feeding and drinking was recorded using videotape. All individuals ate within 90 minutes and drank within 10 minutes. All individuals were weighed at the end of each day and this confirmed that they had actually consumed food. None of the 200 birds showed any difficulty in finding food and water and consuming it and none starved. This suggests that the cause of starve-out is not a learning problem. Patterns of group feeding were investigated by recording pecking behaviour for each group using a purpose-built device called a peck-rate analyzer**. This device detects pecks at each of four feeders and transduces the mechanical vibration of each peck into an electric wave which then passes to the analyzer. The system can detect pecks to a maximum of 3200 pecks/minute and records the pecking activity at each feeder on minute-by-minute basis. These records were analysed for temporal patterns of activity. The analyses revealed that feeding behaviour of newly hatched poults is characterized by two types of rhythm (a) a circadian rhythm of approximately 24 hours and (b) a much shorter ultradian rhythm. All twenty groups demonstrated similar strong circadian patterns of feeding for at least 48 hours after being placed on experiment despite being kept in continuous light. In addition, all groups demonstrated ultradian rhythms of feeding consisting of short bouts of feeding alternating with non-feeding. The data suggest that feeding behaviour of newly hatched poults is complex and deserves further investigation. They suggest that the actual initiation of feeding and drinking is not problematic, at least for healthy birds and that starve-out is probably not caused by a learning deficit. Further, the fact that there is a strong circadian rhythm for feeding from hatching (or very soon after hatching), suggests that the husbandry practice of leaving birds in continuous light in order to stimulate feeding, may require re- examination. ** Technical information on the peck-rate analyzer is available from Wolfgang Panning, Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto, Canada (Telephone: 416 978 5257 or 416 763 2668). PRELIMINARY STUDY ON SUCKLING BEHAVIOUR IN WATER-BUFFALO L. Carlos Pinheiro Machado, Fo and Abdon L. Schmitt, Fo., UFSC, Dep. Zootecnia, C.P. 476, Florianopolis, S.C., BRAZIL (LPINHEIRO@APS.UoGuelph.CA) Management procedures usually adopted for cattle have been applied to water-buffalo (w-b) as the Brazilian population of w-b has increased. The purpose of this study was to provide some preliminary information on suckling behaviour in w-b calves, important for early survival and growth. During June, September and October 1990, a herd of 28 w-b cows with their respective calves and one bull were observed on a commercial farm on the southeast coast of Brazil. The herd was kept on pasture, rotating between 1 ha paddocks every 3 days. All observations were made by direct visual observation with binoculars. In June 1990 (stage 1), a sample of twelve calves were classified in three groups by age - 2 months (2M), 3 months (3M), and 4 months (4M). They were observed for frequency of suckling and grazing time for 72 h, in six 12-h sessions, alternating periods from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., with 2 days of rest between each session. Every suckling event was registered, and grazing was recorded by scans at 10 min intervals. Results were analyzed by the method of Least Square. In September - October 1990 (stage 2), 24 suckling events of calves aged 4-6 months were observed during the daytime periods. Times of each nursing event (cow-calf interactions related with a given suckling event), and suckling event (calf sucking the teat in its mouth), were recorded, and the calf's suckling position and occurrence of multiple sucklings were registered. In stage 1, the average number of suckling events per 24 hours, for 2M, 3M and 4M calves, respectively, were 3.6a, 3.0ab, and 2.2b (Duncan test, P<0.05). Percent of grazing time per 24 hours did not differ significantly with age (18%, 22%, and 23%, respectively). In stage 2, the average nursing event time was 19.0 (+5.8) min and the average suckling event time was 12.3 (+2.6) min. Calves suckled from behind the cow in 75.1% of events, from either side of the cow in 8.3% of events and from the side, moving to the back in 16.6% of events. Multiple suckling occurred in 12.5 %, and allogrooming (dam to calf) in 60%, of events. Results and comparison with cattle are summarized in Table 1. Differences between species exist, and the direct application of cattle management procedures to w-b calves may not be appropriate. Table 1: Differences in suckling behaviour of water buffalo calves (this study) and published results for cattle. WATER BUFFALO CATTLE (ref) ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUCKLING FREQUENCY/24h 3.6(2M)/2.2(4M) 8-9(1-2M)/4-5(5-6M)(1,2,3) DURATION OF SUCKLING 12.3 min 8-10 min (3,4) SUCKLING POSITION FROM THE BACK FROM THE SIDE (5) MULTIPLE SUCKLING 12.5 % NOT COMMONLY REPORTED ------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Somerville & Lowman, 1979. Appl. Anim. Etho. 5:369-373. (2) Reinhardt & Reinhardt, 1981. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 96:309-312. (3) Day et al., 1987. J. Anim. Sci. 65:1207-1212. (4) Lidfords & Jensen, 1988. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 20:237-247. (5) Lewandrowski & Hurnik, 1983. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 63:849-853. EFFECTS OF STRESS ON MATERNAL BEHAVIOUR IN PIGS J. Rushen1, A.M. de Passille1, J. Ladewig2 and G. Foxcroft3, 1Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada J1M 1Z3, 2Animal Husbandry & Behaviour, Trenthorst, Germany, and 3Dept. of Animal Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2P5 (RUSHENJ@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA) Little is known of how stress affects maternal behaviour in pigs. Many nursings are unsuccesful and piglets get no milk. Stress is often considered the cause, but there is little evidence. We examined if lactating sows in novel environments have more unsuccessful nursings. Six sows (3-14d postpartum) were either placed with their piglets for 2h in a different farrowing pen, or were driven into the new pen and immediately returned to their own (control). All sows were subject to both treatments over two days, with the order of treatments being balanced. Nursings were recorded as successful if there was increased rate of grunting by the sow and rapid sucking by the piglets. Blood was sampled every 10 min and assayed for ACTH and cortisol. Placing the sow in the novel pen did not significantly increase the latency to the first nursing attempt, but the proportion of nursings that failed was much higher (51% versus 8%, P<.01), and the latency to the first successful nursing was longer than in the home pen (P<.01). Cortisol and ACTH concentrations were not increased in the novel environment (P>0.10), and neither cortisol nor ACTH were higher before an unsuccessful nursing than before a successful one (P>0.10). An unfamiliar environment increases the chance that a nursing will fail to lead to milk ejection, thus demonstrating that some unsuccessful nursings result from stress, but the effect is not mediated by hypothalamo-pituitary-adreno-cortical (HPA) activity, throwing doubt on the value of this traditional index of stress. To determine the role of opioid peptides in stress-induced inhibition of nursing, 10 sows (3-7d postpartum), had their piglets removed for 2h, and were treated as follows. 1. No treatment, 2. Nose-snare restraint for 20 min., 3. Naloxone injections (i.v. 2mg/kg), 4. Snare + naloxone. After the treatment, the piglets were returned, milk ejections were timed, and the sows' blood sampled every 10 min. for cortisol, GH and prolactin assays. Restraint increased cortisol (P<.05) but did not delay the first milk ejection or reduce the frequency of nursings. No unsuccessful nursings were observed and successful milk ejections occurred when cortisol levels were elevated. Piglet removal increased cortisol and decreased prolactin and GH (P<.05). The rise in GH when piglets were returned was prevented by the combination of restraint and naloxone, but not by restraint alone. Opioids protect lactogenic hormones against behavioural stress, but stress-induced HPA activity does not inhibit milk ejection in the pig. Stress is often considered a nonspecific HPA reaction to environmental challenges but the concept should be broadened to include specific disruptions of biological functions via other neuroendocrine pathways. EVALUATION OF AN ENRICHMENT DEVICE FOR CAGED LAYING HENS A.A. Taylor, G.I. Hurnik, and J.F. Hurnik, Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1 (ATAYLOR@APS.UoGuelph.CA) The static, low complexity environment of the modern battery cage has been linked to behaviours believed to indicate that the quality of life of caged laying hens is compromised. Such behaviours include increased aggression, stereotyped featherpecking, and even cannibalism. The goals of enrichment, therefore, are to relieve occupational deprivation in the hopes of preventing the development of such behaviours, and to provide a target object other than cagemates for their expression. Enrichment devices must not only be safe and hygienic, but also relevant to those motivational systems thought to be deprived in the hens' environment and, in order to maintain bird interest over the long term, be variable in their response to bird interaction. A commercially available enrichment device for laying hens claims to result in significant improvements in egg production, egg weight, and mortality rates, as well as a decrease aggressive behaviour among caged laying hens. In addition to examining production effects, the current study intended to examine behavioural patterns of device use, and to assess its usefulness in relieving the behavioural deprivation of caged housing. The device was distributed to one half (320 birds) of the birds participating in a parent project looking at interactions between 5 strains of commercial White Leghorns and 4 diets, balanced for strain and diet. The hens were housed in pairs in battery cages providing 575 cm2 per bird, and fed ad libitum. Production data was collected biweekly. Behavioural data were collected from a focal group of 4 cages (8 birds), videotaped for 14 hours during Weeks 18, 22, 26, 30, 38, 48, and 54 of age. The productivity of experimental and control birds did not differ; control hens laid, on average, 259 eggs through their laying cycle, and experimental hens laid, on average, 258. Only 7 control and 8 experimental hens died between Weeks 18-63 (2.19% and 2.5%, respectively, P > 0.05). Hen use of the device was relatively low initially, rising from 0.357 to 0.497 and then dropping to 0.232 interactions per hen-hour during the first five months of the study (Weeks 18-38). This suggests a typical habituation effect, although the duration of the habituation phase was much longer than reported elsewhere. After Week 38, the frequency of hen-device interactions increased dramatically, reaching almost 2 interactions per hen- hour. The abruptness of the increase suggests a specific change in the birds' motivational relationship with the device, perhaps as a result of the effects of longer-term exposure to the barren cage environment. If this is the case, then the device may help to alleviate problems with featherpecking or cannibalism among caged laying hens. However, this welfare benefit would be experienced primarily by the cage-mates who would be spared as target objects. ------- POSTERS ------- CHOOSING TO MAXIMIZE DISTANCE FROM GROUP MEMBERS RESULTS IN ANIMATS POSITIONING AROUND THE ENCLOSURE PERIMETER J.Z. Zhou and W.R. Stricklin, Department of Animal Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA (William_R_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu) Closely confined animals have been reported to use the floor area adjacent to the perimeter of their enclosure at a greater rate than other portions of the enclosure's floor area. Explanations for these results have been that animals are 1) avoiding the pen center where agonistic encounters may be more likely to occur or 2) engaging in thigmotaxic (contact seeking) behavior. In the current research, a computer program was written to simulate the distributions of confined animats (computer simulated animals) that move using strategies that can be controlled by us. In one simulation, animats moved randomly. In another set of simulations, animats moved based on maximizing the distance to the first nearest neighbor (NN), the nearest two NN, the nearest three NN, etc. until the final simulation which was based on animats that moved to maximize distance from all group-mates. We determined that increasing the number of NN group-mates that a moving animat maximally positioned away from resulted in an increase in the proportion of animats positioning around the boundary. These results suggest that closely confined animals may occupy the perimeter at a greater than expected rate because they choose to maximize their distance from some or all of their group-mates. =============================================================================== From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.edinburgh.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 21-JUN-1994 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Future ISAE congresses Dear All Just a note on the process of choosing locations for future ISAE congresses. Discussion of possible locations on the network is fine - although don't forget that there is still only a minority of ISAE members on the network and that people outside the main areas of membership are probably under-represented. But decisions on locations are of course made by the Council. So if you are serious about the idea of organising a meeting, send us a formal offer which we can consider. To remind you, future locations are: 1994 Foulum, Denmark 1995 Exeter, UK 1996 Guelph, Canada 1997 Prague, Czech Republic After that we have three other formal offers in hand, but decisions are yet to be made. Best wishes, Mike ISAE Secretary ============================================================================== From: IN%"GJM10@PHOENIX.CAMBRIDGE.AC.UK" 21-JUN-1994 06:57:13.41 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: stereotypies I'd like to support (a bit belatedly) Jonathan Cooper's recent 'broadcast' on the possible functions of stereotypies. Jeff demanded to know whether stereotypies were linked with coping, and claimed that the idea was dead and buried, at least as far as pigs were concerned (if I'm remembering it rightly). Of course, as Jonathan says, stereotypies are fundamentally heterogeneous; the term 'stereotypy' is just descriptive, and has been applied to a enormous array of behaviour patterns which differ in their correlates & mechanisms. So the answer to the question, 'Are stereotypies linked with coping?' is - some are, some aren't. As for pigs, Willem Schouten's got beautiful data showing that in young pigs, heart rates fall when the animals start a bout of stereotypy, and bounce back up again when they stop. In mink, I also found some signs that stereotypies were linked with coping - though as in pigs, it depnded on the age of the animals that were looked at. I looked at two groups of multiparous females, and in one, the females with the highest levels of stereotypy had the lowest mortality and the least fear of novel objects. In both groups, females with the highest levels of stereotypy also had the longest implantation delays during their pregancies, which would be consistent with lowered levels of prolactin. These results need replicating, and I obviously need to assay prolactin directly instead of making dodgy inferences! And of course they beg questions about what is causing what, too. But the idea that stereotypies are sometimes associated with coping still seems to me to be perfectly respectable! Does anyone else have recent data on this? Georgia Mason ============================================================================= From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 22-JUN-1994 12:02:52.39 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: how broad is the ISAE? Recently the International Society of Applied Ethology (ISAE) has been trying to make itself truely "international" and to increase its attraction to people working with non-farm animals. The following summary of presentations at the ISAE meeting in Denmark give some idea of how successful these moves are: The number of contributions for each country Europe 96 - UK 32 - Scandanavia 20 - East Europe 16 - Germany + Switzerl. 13 - Benelux 8 - Italy 5 - France 2 (why so few?) North America 10 -USA 3 -Canada 7 Asia 2 South America 1 The number of contributions per type of animal: Pigs 28 Cattle 18 Poultry 16 Fur 11 Sheep+goat 7 Lab animals 7 Pets 7 (includes horses) Zoo 3 Deer 2 Based on this I would conclude that the ISAE remains largely Nort-East Europeans studying farm animal behaviour. Any ideas how we could change this? or should we? Jeff Rushen =============================================================================== From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 22-JUN-1994 14:38:13.03 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: stereotypies/coping/scientific method Georgia presents some interesting data showing that in mink performance of stereotyped behaviour is correlated with other aspects of their biology. However, I dont see why this data supports the coping hypothesis of stereotypies. Certainly, the data could be CONSISTENT WITH this hypothesis, but to claim it as supporting data would require that alternative explanations be tested and eliminated. This is rarely done when people claim to test out the coping hypothesis. For example, the performance of stereotypies MIGHT lead to reduced fear of novelty. But reduced fear of novel objects MIGHT lead to the performance of stereotypies. Alternatively, some third factor (genetic differences between animals) MIGHT lead to both stereotypies and reduced fear. Why favour only one of these explanations? A second problem with her examples is that the concept of coping tends to get expanded to the point where it is not really useful. For example, why should long implantation delays or low levels of prolactin be considered as signs of a failure to cope. Surely, there are many other explanations of this data, which are just as plausible and probably much more interesting than the "coping hypothesis". Why not try to explain the data the best way possible rather than trying to squeeze it into supporting a favoured hypothesis. Jeff Rushen ============================================================================== From: IN%"GJM10@PHOENIX.CAMBRIDGE.AC.UK" 23-JUN-1994 04:48:45.32 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: coping mink Oh golly, yet another aggressive challenge from Jeff! I stand falsely accused of over-interpreting my data. But in fact I was careful (as far as I remember) to say nothing more bold than that mink stereotypies are sometimes ASSOCIATED WITH coping. Of COURSE all I have are correlations - I have no intention of using them to somehow prove that stereotypies have a function: these data suggest future things to test, rather than being the end of the story! (Though incidentally, it's notoriously difficult to tease out the possible effects of stereotyping; one could try and see the consequences of manipulating stereotypy levels ... but then to stop some of my mink stereotyping you'd have to put them in strait jackets or something ...). I think the most interesting thing about the mink is that the correlates of the behaviour depended on which sub-groups were looked at: in the sub-adults, stereotypy levels correlated with relative adrenal weight; in the primiparous females, they didn't - but they were linked with tail-biting, and in one population, with being very underweight; while in the multiparous females, stereotypies weren't linked with any of these 'negative' things, and instead were linked with the possible, questionable, speculative and tantalising signs of coping I mentioned earlier! (As a point of fact, I'm suggesting low prolactin as a sign of cping rather tahn failure to cope - prolactin levels often increase during stress). There are two possible explanations for this change with age, I think. One is that there really is some kind of developmental change in the correlates of stereotypy as the animals age (as there seem to be - though in the other direction - in pigs). The other is that this change is an artefact of the selection that goes on on the farm. Approximately half of each cohort of female mink are allowed to keep their skins at pelting time and surivive another year. These females are the ones with the best pelts, and the the most success at breeding. So when looking at sub-adults I'm looking at the average mink-on-the-street kind of animal, while the multiparous (2 - 4 year old) mink are a glossy-coated, mega- breeding Super Sub-group! But no doubt this will spark another rant from Jeff! Georgia ============================================================================= From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN" 23-JUN-1994 13:10:34.23 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: an aggressive rant about stereotypies My apologies for falsely accusing Georgia of over-interpreting data. The point that I wanted to make was that the vast majority (the only ?) data supporting the coping hypothesis is correlational, and that alternative explanations rarely get equal air-time. Georgia claims that low prolactin levels indicate succesful coping because stress can lead to elevated prolactin. I am totally ignorant about the endocrinology of mink. In pigs and rats, I believe that some stressors (but not all) can lead to increased prolactin in non-lactating females and males In lactating females, stress either has no effect on prolactin or leads to reduced prolactin responses to nursing (this is true in pigs). Endogenous opioids (which are associated with stereotypies in some complex way) mediated the stress-induced increase in prolactin in rats, but not in pigs. Opioids seem to protect lactating female pigs against stress-induced inhibition of prolactin. The point is that the relationship between stress and prolactin is complex and we need to be certain what stress does to prolactin before using it as evidence for "coping". Georgia mentions how correlations between stereotypies and other aspects of mink physiology change with age. However, she points out that there is considerable selection of mink, so that the multiparous groups represent only a sample of the sub-adults. Since correlations are based on variability in populations, a reduction in variability within the population (as occurs during sampling) can result in altered correlations. However, the fact that the correlations have changed is a statistical effect and does not mean that the underlying causal relationships have changed. Again (and I really dont want to insult anyone) it is important to realize that correlational data really contain very limited information. As Georgia says correlations are a way of producing hypotheses, not testing them. (Was that too aggressive?) Jeff Rushen ============================================================================== From: IN%"bwechsler@esh.unibe.ch" 24-JUN-1994 11:07:42.79 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Stereotypies and coping behaviour When discussing the relationship between stereotypies and coping it should be made clear what is meant by the "coping hypothesis of stereotypies". Only then will it be possible to state if data on stereotypic behaviour in a given species are consistent with "the" selected hypothesis. In the following I list four hypotheses (there may be more!). Each hypothesis applies to the general assumption that stereotypies help an animal to cope with an adverse environment. In addition, I specify the type of data needed to test each hypothesis. a) Stereotypies lower levels of physiological measures of stress induced by the adverse environment. The performance of stereotyped behaviour should then be associated with lower levels of stress (cortisol, immune system, heart rate). The stress level may be correlated with the amount (percentage of total activity, frequency) of stereotyped behaviour. There may even be a relationship between the level of a stress measure and the duration of a stereotypic bout. It should also be possible to show that there is an increase in stress level when the animal is prevented from performing a stereotypic behaviour it has already acquired. Some work has been done with this coping hypothesis. The results are not always in accordance with the hypothesis. b) Stereotypies are associated with an increase in endogenous opioid activity. If this hypothesis is true the perfomance of stereotyped behaviour should be associated with signs of analgesia. There is actually much controversy about this hypothesis. c) Stereotypies change the perception of the adverse situation. This could result in a reduced attentiveness to adverse stimuli. It could also lead to changes in the perception of environmental qualities and hence to changes in environmental preferences. Some studies have focussed on this hypothesis. Again, there are contradictory results. d) Stereotypies result from a behavioural strategy aimed at changing the adverse environment. This hypothesis can be tested by looking at the development of stereotypic behaviour. For example, stereotypic behaviour could develop from attempts to escape from a cage, to get close to a mate in a neighbouring cage, to increase distance to a frightening stimulus or to search for a stimulus that is absent in the cage (e.g. food, nesting material). Only few detailed studies with this hypothesis have been published yet. There are, however, single case descriptions of the development of stereotypies in zoo animals. It is possible that studies with different types of stereotypic behaviour provide different results with respect to these the hypotheses. We do not know now, how heterogeneous "stereotypies" are. Have a nice week-end. Beat Wechsler ============================================================================= From: IN%"GJM10@PHOENIX.CAMBRIDGE.AC.UK" 27-JUN-1994 03:16:18.35 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: more coping Dear all, Beat is right to address the thorny issue of what it is we mean by "coping", and to break down the different systems that may be involved. But his comments also raised a couple of questions in my mind. The first is one aimed at everyone, but particularly neurophysiologists; and the second is largely aimed at him. 1) Re. the idea that if coping involves an increase in endogenous opioid activity, this will be manifest as analgesia .... isn't this a bit simplistic, or even wrong? Implicitly at least, isn't the association between some stereotypies and opioid activity described in terms of "coping" because central opioids "feel nice" (a la opium etc.) and are involved in rewarding behaviours (e.g. being groomed, in monkeys; eating chocolate, in rats, etc.). But isn't this central action (or rather central ACTIONS - because there are a lot of diferent opioids and a lot of different receptors) quite independent of their peripheral effect of pain modulation? Can anyone out there help me on this one? 2) I don't quite see the link between behaviour that develops from an animal trying to change its circumstances to the better, and coping. If a stereotypy develops from attempts to esacpe a cage, couldn't this just be a manifestation of prolonged and possibly miserable frustration? If it is quite obviously failing to escape, how do you know it isn't "failing to cope" rather than "coping"? Looking forward to learning more! Georgia ============================================================================== From: IN%"MPRICE@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA" "M.A. Price Chairman" 27-JUN-1994 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Stereotypy and coping in humans From: M.A. Price Chairman Animal Science University of Alberta Perhaps Joe Stookey invited me to subscribe to this bulletin board so that I could ask ask the dumb questions, so here goes. I thought that jogging by humans was an example of a stereotypy, and that the so-called runners high is a product of endogenous opioid production in the brain. I also thought that I had heard ethologists suggest that it (jogging) is a coping behaviour intended to relieve the stress of living in a restrictive environment (an office in the city and a home in suburbia). It all seemed to fit together so nicely; do ethologists no longer believe this? Is there physiological evidence one way or the other? Should joggers be euthanizsed to spare them this misery? Mick =============================================================================== From: IN%"bwechsler@esh.unibe.ch" 27-JUN-1994 10:39:52.19 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Coping and evolution Dear Georgia, Dear all, I am sure that animals did not start to show coping behaviour when scientists became interested in the function of abnormal behaviour. Adverse situations occur not only in intensive housing systems or in studies with experimentally induced frustration, but also in a natural environment. It is therefore likely that the behavioural organization of animals contains a set of strategies to cope with adverse situations. In your study with caged mink (published in Behaviour 127, pp. 191-229) you speculate that "stationary stereotypies" such as head-twirling may be derived from attempts to escape whereas "Longitudinal movements" i.e. pacing may stem from appetitive, food-searching behaviour. If your intuition is right, both stereotypies are linked to specific adverse situations that the minks try to change by their behaviour. Of course, there is not much they can do within their cage. There is no possibility to escape and there is no way to search and find food. In a natural situation, however, they would most probably be successful. They would increase distance to this unpleasent place and their appetitive behaviour would end with the catch of a prey. It is not the minks' fault that they fail to change their adverse environment. Their behavioural organization has been shaped by evolution to react with escape behaviour or with appetitive behaviour when confronted with specific adverse situations. It is possible, that there is no subprogram to stop these behavioural strategies if they are not successful and that they turn into stereotypic behaviour. You may call this "failing to cope". I would call it "attempts to cope". If the environmental setting is much different from the type of environment that has shaped the behavioural organization (e.g. minks in a barren cage), it is likely that behavioural strategies are no more adaptive. Of course, there may still be some benefit to perform stereotyped behaviour. There may be changes in physiological measures of stress, in endogenous opioid concentrations (Sorry, I can't answer your first question as I am not an expert in physiology) or in perception, but I think that stereotypies primarily develop from attempts to change the environmental situation itself. Just a last point to think about. Is it reasonable to define coping behaviour by its success? For example, some three shrew males, after an initial fight with a dominant male, sit almost continually in a corner of the cage and hardly respond to external stimuli. If not separated from the dominant male, they die within a few days. Can we say that there was no coping given the fact that in a normal environment these males would just leave the territory of the dominant male? My point is that we can create experimental situations in which the animals try to cope but fail, as the situation overtaxes their behavioural organization. Beat Wechsler ============================================================================= From: IN%"wattsjon@herald.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 27-JUN-1994 14:15:17.62 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Stereotypy and coping in humans Likewise meditative practices involving repetition of mantras etc. Should human participation in such activity be regarded as an indicator of poor welfare? Also perhaps any kind of religious activity requiring repeated standing, kneeling or bowing may indicate that participants are attempting to cope with stresses in their environments. In effect, as a modern day Marx might have observed, releasing the endogenous opiods of the People. errr.... Just a thought. Jon Watts University of Saskatchewan Dept of Herd Medicine & Theriogenology ============================================================================= From: IN%"CEM1008@PHOENIX.CAMBRIDGE.AC.UK" 28-JUN-1994 04:53:39.21 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", CC: Subj: endogenous opioids This is my simplistic version of endogenous opioids- I hope I've got it right. 1. Some endogenous opioids eg Beta endorphin are released from the anterior pituitary gland into the circulation in response to various stressors. They do NOT produce analgesia. 2. Endongenous opioids may also be active in the CNS where they can produce anlagesia. 3. Stress-induced analgesia can be opioid or non-opioid produced. The former is blocked by naloxone so presumed to be due to CNS opioid activity. 4. Stress can lead to hyperalgesia in some cases.Involvement of endogenous opioids not known. Notice I havene't mentioned stereotypies (too much of a coward !) However I hope this might show that stereotypies leading to increased peripheral opioid activity does NOT necessarily mean analgesia will occur too. from Caroline Manser ================================================================================ From: IN%"GJM10@PHOENIX.CAMBRIDGE.AC.UK" 28-JUN-1994 05:30:05.67 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: hopeless coping Dear all, With a sinking heart I realise I might be sparking off another big discussion about definitions (ugh), BUT .... surely to cope means (implicitly) to ameliorate things, to be able to deal with things better - to SUCCEED, at least in part, to cope? If you say, "I can cope", you don't mean, "I can attempt to cope". And when stereotypies are linked with the dread word, it's because they correlate with signs of reduced stress (etc.). Most people ( I think!) would not call something a coping behaviour if it wasn't having any useful effect - EVEN IF it was derived from something that in the wild, say, would indeed get the animal out of trouble. The tree shrew example has always driven me NUTS. The poor things curl up and literally die of stress - how on earth can it be helpful to call their behaviour a coping response?! They are failing - but the situation's not one they've adapted to, neither evolutionarily nor ontogenetically. (sorry - I didn't mean 'but', I meant 'because', & I can't edit this!). What do other people think? Georgia PS Thanks for the plug, Beat - the Eurocheque's in the post ============================================================================== From: IN%"RWJOHN@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu" 28-JUN-1994 09:31:13.61 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: I would like to address several issues regarding endogenous opioids and analgesia, but first let me introduce myself to the network. I am an assistant professor in the Department of Animal Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana. I research and teach domestic animal behavior but must confess to be too much a reductionist to be considered an ethologist. To make a long story short, our laboratory's research efforts are directed at understanding how physiologic systems such as the immune and neuroendocrine act at the CNS and induce behavior. We work primarily with pigs and rats. I am not comfortable addressing the relationship between the expression of stereotypic behavior and endogenous opioids. Others on this network seem much more qualified for this than I. Maybe I can provide some insights into analgesia and endogenous opioids from a CNS perspective. It is my under- standing that behavior induced by endogenous opioids is generally believed to be regulated by the periaqueductal gray matter (PAG) in the midbrain. This includes analgesia, if you consider the failure to respond to an other- wise painful stimuli a behavior. Evidence for this comes from studies in rats, which may make this entire note irrelevant because rats generally don't exhibit stereotypic behavior. In any case, the evidence of a central site of action is as follows (from Physiology of Behavior, N.R. Carlson, 1994): 1) electrical stimulation of the PAG produced analgesia in rats equivalent to a high dose of morphine; 2) microinjection of morphine into PAG induced analgesia; 3) microinjection of naloxone into the PAG inhibited morphine-induced analgesia; 4) receptors for opioids have been localized in this area. So clearly endogenous opioids in the CNS could explain analgesia in animals expressing stereotypic behavior. But I am not sure how this fits into the "coping" hypothesis. I guess my point is that to really understand the relationship between endogenous opioids and stereotypic behavior, it seems one would need to account for the expression of both central and peripheral opioids.Does this make sense to anyone? I'm enjoying the network and will keep reading and learning! Best wishes, Rod Johnson rwjohn@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu ============================================================================= From: IN%"GJM10@PHOENIX.CAMBRIDGE.AC.UK" 29-JUN-1994 05:48:44.88 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY-EXPAND@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: more opioids Dear all, I've just asked my head of dept., Barry Keverne, who works on opioids, about this question of the relationship between opioid-induced analgesia and opioid-induced feelings of pleasure, and this is what he said: Opioid systems in the PAG area project down the spine and influence pain fibres. Hence they are involved in analgesia. But the opioid systems involved with pleasure, satisafction and reinforcement (and also with addiction) are far higher up the brain. The cell bodies are in the hypothalamus and project to areas of the limbic brain, e.g. the pre- optic areas and the ventral striatum (where opioids interact with dopamine, which might well be significant for stereotypies!), the limbic brain being the centre for emotions. Although both the limbic opioid systems and the PAG ones involve mu recepters and beta endorphins, they function quite independently of one another. So being hooked on stereotypies (if that is what's happening in some animals/joggers/etc.) does not involve altered analgesia. Refs: Keverne et al. 1989. Psychoneuroendocrinology 14, 155 - 161. Collin & Cesselin 1991. Clin. Neuropharm. 14, 465 - 488 Mansour et al. 1988. TINS 11, 308 - 314. Plagerised seminar over! Georgia =============================================================================