From: IN%"bwebster@uga.cc.uga.edu" 16-JUN-1997 15:24:54.07 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Graduate Studies Position Available To all: I am looking for a good student who wishes to undertake graduate study for a Master's degree in poultry science. The degree program, which would be conducted within the Poultry Science Department of the University of Georgia, Athens, GA, U.S.A., will focus on poultry management with an emphasis on behavior. The student will also become acquainted with issues related to poultry welfare. Upon graduating, the student will have developed competence in poultry production, applied animal behavior science (specifically the use of behavioral science to address problems related to commercial poultry production), and statistical analysis. The research project will involve behavioral study of the aversiveness and efficacy of various gases used for modified atmosphere stunning/killing (MASK) of chicken broilers and layers. The MASK approach to poultry slaughter is an emerging technology which has potential to reduce labor, work-related stress and injury, and carcass downgrading. It may also reduce stress and injury to birds during preslaughter handling at processing plants. Chickens react before or after being stunned to different gases or gas concentrations used for MASK in ways that suggest that some gas atmospheres may be aversive (and so perhaps be undesirable from an animal welfare viewpoint) or cause undue risk of carcass damage due to post-stunning convulsions. This project should help identify which gases and gas concentrations are most acceptable for MASK. The overall research program under which this project falls is a collaborative effort between myself and Dr. Dan Fletcher, who is also a member of the UGA Poultry Science Department and has considerable experience studying the effects of stunning on poultry carcass quality and meat characteristics. Since a major focus of the research will be study of the conscious reactions of chickens to gas stunning atmospheres, it is not anticipated that the research will necessitate killing a large number of birds. If anyone out there knows of someone who might be interested in this opportunity I would be grateful if you would pass this message to them. Please respond to me directly by email, preferably, or by regular mail, fax, etc. The addresses are listed below. Thanks, Bruce Webster ===================================================================== A. Bruce Webster, Ph.D. Voice: 706/542-9154 Department of Poultry Science Fax: 542-8383 The University of Georgia BWEBSTER@uga.cc.uga.edu Athens, GA 30602-4356 ===================================================================== From: IN%"mj@lms-hq.smtp.lms.be" "JANSEN Martin" 17-JUN-1997 00:47:11.53 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Breathing frequency sensor We would like to know if there exists a sensor, that monitors the breathing frequency of a pig. Preferably ready-to-use and to be used on pigs, that have relative freedom (in a box). Sincerely, Martin Jansen. LMS International NV Interleuvenlaan 68 3001 Leuven Belgium +32 16 384 570 +32 16 384 350 (fax) From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 17-JUN-1997 02:30:03.99 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: genetic engineering can be fun Dear All I have been asked to organise a workshop at the ISAE meeting in Prague, on genetic engineering and its implications for behaviour and welfare. Let's broaden that out immediately and talk about genetics, behaviour and welfare, because there are quite a lot of programmes going on round the world on behavioural genetics and prospects or implications for welfare. In fact since Faure asked his rhetorical question a few years ago (Should we fit the animal to the environment or the environment to the animal? The implication was that the latter was more appropriate) I get the impression that the prospects for improving welfare by selection have increased. At the very least we may say that since selection and genetic engineering for production characteristics continue, there should be a lobby for including characteristics relevant to welfare as well. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. Or rather, replies and discussion will be welcome, but more importantly I would like to know if you would be able to contribute to the workshop. I shall be here this week; then from 22nd June to 15th July I shall be c/o Professor Peter Sandoe, Department of Philosophy, University of Copenhagen, Njalsgade 80, DK 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. Tel +45 3532 8851, Fax +45 5370 3573, Email psand@coco.ihi.ku.dk Yours Mike Appleby mappleby@bio.srv0.ed.ac.uk From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 17-JUN-1997 03:23:04.48 To: IN%"filip.mulkens@agr.kuleuven.ac.be" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: genetic engineering can be fun Dear All The workshop on genetics, behaviour and welfare at the ISAE meeting in Prague, will be on Friday 15th August at 16.00. This will in parallel with other workshops but not with excursions, dancing or drinking. The banquet follows at 19.00 so having workshopped dutifully we can have our reward shortly afterwards. The other workshops are likely to be on integrated welfare assessment, primates/zoo animals, and functional approaches to applied ethology. Mike From: IN%"pkabai@ns.univet.hu" "Kabai Peter" 17-JUN-1997 05:45:13.15 To: IN%"arowan@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU" "Andrew Rowan" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: DNA Evolution Dear Andrew, William and Jon, molecular clocks do exist, but they come in different shapes and ticking speed. The probability of fixation as well as the time needed for fixation can be estimated quite precisely, provided there is a way to calibrate the clock in the given gene region. Calibration is needed for many reason, one of them is the interdependence of population size and the fixation time. For example, in case of neutral mutations, the conditional fixation time was determined by Ohta as t = 4 N generations, where N is the genetically effective population size. Now, the genetically effective population size in the long term is significantly determined by the bottleneck population size, if the population size has not been constant. That is because N equals the harmonic mean of all the actual N values throughout time. So not having read the article, a possible pitfall could be the negligence of the domestication process, which in most cases starts with serious inbreeding, and selection for a few particular traits. As wolves were abundant, a paralell process of domestication in many isolated places is quite likely, resulting in severe inbreeding in local subpopulations. If the small N s are not corrected for, time of divergence can be overestimated. To make things worse, it is not easy to calibrate a dog tree of interbreeding and coevolving branches. I have not read the Science article, nor would read it for some time, as in this part of the world it is not natural to get it in the university libraries. So, if anyone out there could donate older issues of Science, Nature, TREE, Scientific American, New Scientist, actually whatever, it would be grately appreciated. Six month old issues sent by bulk mail is just fine. As I am not sure how my University would react to this begging, I am putting here the address of a foundation, which would forward the issues to Departments in need. SALVE Foundation for Education H-2143 Kistarcsa, P.O. box 30. HUNGARY (which stands for hungry for scientific journals) Thanks, Peter Kabai From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 17-JUN-1997 09:08:15.52 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Science Article Has anyone read that paper on dog DNA yet? The most recent issue of Science we have here is march 7th! What does it say? Jon ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Watts (___) ) ) University of Saskatchewan |o o|___________/ ( Dept of Herd Medicine O \#/ | ) and Theriogenology |bser| | Statistical | ( Western College of Vet. Med. |vati| | analysis | ) 52 Campus Drive |ons.| \___________/| *& Saskatoon ------ || || %$#@ S7N 1B4 / \ || || ^*@*~ Canada &^%%#$@ wattsjon@duke.usask.ca "The Holy Cow" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"jon.day@bbsrc.ac.uk" "jon day" 17-JUN-1997 09:52:05.27 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Second call for papers.... SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS ISAE Regional Winter Meeting for UK and Eire - 3rd December 1997 There will be a meeting on December 3rd 1997 at the Royal Veterinary College, London. There will be two sessions: "Learning and motivation: are current models good enough?" and "Improving animal welfare through understanding behaviour". Each session has its own scientific organisers who are: Jon Day (Institute of Food Research - Reading) and Violet Beattie (Agric. Res. Inst., Northern Ireland) respectively. This is the first time that the meeting has had two organisers and the hope is that we can have a wide variety of papers from fundamental to applied. The submission of free communications is also welcomed. The deadline for submitting papers is August 1st. Registration at the conference will cost only ?10.00. If you would like further details please contact: Libby Hunter Cambac JMA Research Lower Cadleys South Stoke Reading RG8 OLX TEL: +44 (0) 1491 875553 FAX: +44 (0) 1491 875799 From: IN%"serpell@vet.upenn.edu" 17-JUN-1997 12:00:32.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Science article I have read the Science paper. I was faxed a copy to comment on by the New York Times which also featured an article on the subject. With only a rudimentary grasp of molecular genetics, I don't feel qualified to pass judgement on the validity of the proposed date of domestication (perhaps as early as 135,000 years ago), although I understand that caution needs to be exercised with mtDNA divergence dates, particularly with closely related (and recently diverged) taxa. In response to Peter Kabai's comment about calibration, the authors based their calculation on DNA sequence divergence between wolves and coyotes which are apparently known to have diverged about 1 million years ago, according to the fossil record. They then assume that dogs will have experienced the same rate of gene substitution at the same sites and that, given their current sequence divergence from wolves, the two lineages must have separated a great deal earlier then previously thought. The 135,000 years is an outside estimate, and the authors freely admit that this figure may be inflated by other factors, although they emphasize that their findings strongly indicate a much, much earlier date of domestication (or at least separation of dog and wolf lineages) than that provided by the archaeological record. I have no problem with this concept (and was a trifle surprised that a newspaper report -- albeit the Washington Post -- formed the basis for criticism). I am less comfortable, however, with the authors' explanation for the discrepancy between the archaeological and mtDNA evidence: namely, that there was no morphological divergence between domestic dogs and wolves until about 14,000 years ago. This would fly in the face of everything we know about rates of morphological change in domestic species which tend to be rather rapid due to fundamentally different selection pressures. It seems more likely (if the DNA dates are accepted) that, for much of its early history, the dog evolved in isolation in a geographically restricted area where there have been few, if any, archaeological excavations. Its 'sudden' appearance in the archaeological record around 14,000 years ago could then perhaps be explained by a burst of geographic radiation coinciding with the end of the last global Ice Age. (PS: Much (perhaps most) phenotypic change does not require genetic mutation. For a good review of this in dogs see: Coppinger, R & Schneider, R. 1995. The evolution of working dogs. In: _The Domestic Dog, etc._, ed. J. Serpell, pp. 21-47. Cambridge University Press). James Serpell ___________________________________________________________________ School of Veterinary Medicine, Dept. of Clinical Studies, University of Pennsylvania, 3900 Delancey Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6010. USA. Tel: (215) 898-1004 Fax: (215) 573-6050 serpell@vet.upenn.edu From: IN%"Edypuss@aol.com" 17-JUN-1997 17:51:52.73 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Interested in pursuing graduate work in applied-ethology Hi, I'm new to both the news-group and ethology in general. I'm thinking about going into applied ethology to study small companion animals (i.e., dogs and cats...), but aside from owning one of each, I have no background in ethology (my degree is in sociology). I also have no idea where I could go to study this in the US. If anyone could give me some information on what I might need to do to prepare myself for a program in this area, as well as where I might go to study it, I would really appreciate it. Thanks! Amy Schiller From: IN%"billcamp@cdsnet.net" 17-JUN-1997 18:19:34.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ultra-sonics/dogs HELP! Can anyone guide me to some references to ultra-sonic communications between canidae? Bill Campbell From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 18-JUN-1997 02:37:36.80 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: GE workshop - corrections Dear All I'm sorry - the workshops at the Prague ISAE meeting will be on Wednesday 13th August (from 16.00 to 18.00), not the Friday as I thought. And another correction. Jean-Michel Faure tells me that in asking the question 'Should we fit the animal to the environment or the environment to the animal?' he did NOT imply that the latter was more appropriate. Apologies to him, but it is certainly my impression that his question is most often quoted with that implication or indeed with the explicit answer that altering the environment is the better solution. However, as I said, there is now quite a lot of work - including by Jean-Michel and his colleagues - suggesting that genetic selection may be beneficial for welfare. Anyway, this is all food for thought at the workshop. Mike From: IN%"reedd@cjnetworks.com" 18-JUN-1997 07:51:22.75 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology" CC: Subj: Pythons and touch I just got a baby Ball Python and have noticed that when handled. Scratched, and petted it reacts much like a cat(excuse the compairison) but she arches up twords the stroke, reptiles are not normally thought of as an animal to "pet" but has it even been considered? I also am looking on general information on handeling and interesting facts about Ball Pythons and pythons in general. THANKS in ANTISIPATION MAREN (e-mail address REED) From: IN%"ilsmith@utkux.utcc.utk.edu" "Ione Smith" 18-JUN-1997 09:12:36.06 To: IN%"reedd@cjnetworks.com" "Reed Davis" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology" Subj: RE: Pythons and touch On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Reed Davis wrote: > I just got a baby Ball Python and have noticed that when > handled. Scratched, and petted it reacts much like a cat(excuse the > compairison) but she arches up twords the stroke, reptiles are not > normally thought of as an animal to "pet" but has it even been > considered? > I also am looking on general information on handeling and > interesting facts about Ball Pythons and pythons in general. > THANKS in ANTISIPATION > MAREN (e-mail address REED) Here's two books you might want to check out: Anderson, R. S., & Edney, A. T. B. (1991). Practical animal handling. Warwick, C., Frye, F. L., & Murphy, J. B. (1995). Health and welfare of captive reptiles. Sorry, I don't have the publishers. Ione ================================================== http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~ilsmith/ethics.html for all sides of the AR/AW/anti-AR debate http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~ilsmith/SVME.html The Society for Veterinary Medical Ethics http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~ilsmith/stereo.html the stereotypical behaviors database ================================================== I am always willing to learn, however I do not always like to be taught. -- Winston Churchill From: IN%"billings@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU" "Heather J. Billings" 18-JUN-1997 10:51:04.89 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: Subj: Science article The Jun 13 issue of Science arrived in the mail today, so of course I had to jump right to the article on dog domestication to find out what all the debate is about. I can't comment on actual dating as I'm not familiar with the methods used. However, I can see where dispute would occur in the interpretation of these results. There seems to be an underlying assumption that divergence of dogs from wolves occurred concurrently with the domestication process. From my understanding of evolutionary processes, it makes more sense that the dog began to diverge from the wolf well before domestication would have been possible. By this I mean that enough variation would have had to occur to allow their reactions to humans to be different from the other wolves that did not become domesticated. I agree with James Serpell that these "dogs" likely are not found in the fossil record not because they didn't vary phenotypically as the authors of the Science article assert, but because this was possibly a small, isolated population that was not yet associated with any human populations. I would then suggest that at whatever time the dog and human populations "crossed paths" the benefits of the association with humans allowed the dogs to increase their population size and become prevalent enough to be found in the fossil record. Then, once humans began domesticating dogs, I would expect more rapid changes in both genotype and phenotype as a result of more selective breeding. What do the other folks out there think? Heather Billings **************************************************************************** Heather J. Billings Dept. of Animal Sciences Cook College, Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ 08903 BILLINGS@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU **************************************************************************** From: IN%"gfb1@email.psu.edu" "G. F. Barbato" 18-JUN-1997 13:38:27.51 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Science article At 12:50 PM 6/18/97 -0400, you wrote: >The Jun 13 issue of Science arrived in the mail today, so of course I had >to jump right to the article on dog domestication to find out what all >the debate is about. > >I can't comment on actual dating as I'm not familiar with the methods >used. However, I can see where dispute would occur in the interpretation >of these results. There seems to be an underlying assumption that >divergence of dogs from wolves occurred concurrently with the >domestication process. From my understanding of evolutionary processes, >it makes more sense that the dog began to diverge from the wolf well >before domestication would have been possible. By this I mean that >enough variation would have had to occur to allow their reactions to >humans to be different from the other wolves that did not become >domesticated. [snip] this is an interesting idea, though i'm not sure its supported by data. wolves correspond nicely to EHale's list of social behaviors that could facilitate domestication. further, wolves also have a continuum of responses to humans, so the genetic variation underlying the continuum was already in existence. experimentally, this appears to be supported by Belyaev's work on approach behavior in silver foxes. certainly, JMFaure's JQuail lines also show that there is a moderate amount of additive genetic variation for approach-responses (even in a domesticated species). early domestication processes are clearly influenced by drift (only some animals and, hence, some genes, will be reproduced) and selection (i.e., additive genetic variation) then comes into play , whether from unconscious (sensu Darwin) or directional selection. i also imagine that, in the early generations of selection, dominance variation would be important, though of lesser degree after a generation or two of breeding in captivity. both archaeological and genetic research among domestic animal species suggest that the early domestication process is accompanied by several morphological consequences (see Zeuner's nice, though dated, text) perhaps best summarized as generalized neoteny. jim serpell may be better suited to answer these questions to the case of the dog, but i suspect that the genetic mechanisms will be similar for most species. indeed our best data set may come from information derived from the mouse and rat, which were domesticated under moreorless controlled conditions within the last 150 years. one day i'll also actually answer mike appleby's question about the ethics of artificial selection and adaptation of animal to environment (or vice versa.....) the only thing i need is time : ) regards, guy G. F. Barbato Phone: (814)-865-4481 Graduate Program in Genetics FAX: (814)-865-5691 Dept. Poultry Science Lab: (814)-865-3189 Penn State University Email: gfb1@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802 http://ps235.cas.psu.edu/ From: IN%"Kate.Littin.1@uni.massey.ac.nz" "Kate Littin" 18-JUN-1997 15:34:11.98 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: crowing rooster Hi all, i was wondering if anyone had any experience with methods of reducing or preventing roosters from crowing. This request was made to me by a town dweller. I'm not interested in surgical methods myself, and i don't know if i would be happy recommending them, but any suggestions at all would be helpful to this person. Thanks in advance, Kate Littin. ================================== = Kate Littin = = Dept. Physiology & Anatomy = = Massey University = = Private Bag 11-222 = = Palmerston North = = New Zealand (Aotearoa) = = ph +64 06 3504251 = = Kate.Littin.1@uni.massey.ac.nz = ================================== From: IN%"mkreger@nal.usda.gov" "Mike Kreger" 19-JUN-1997 06:02:15.86 To: IN%"reedd@cjnetworks.com" "Reed Davis" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology" Subj: RE: Pythons and touch Reed- Back in 1992, I did a study involving the physiological and behavioral effects of handling and restraint in ball pythons and blue-tongued skinks (Kreger, M.D. and J.A. Mench (1993). Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 38:323-336.). While little evidence of chronic stress was found resulting from brief periods of handling, there were behavioral differences between individuals that were present prior to and throughout the study (although not analyized). One snake was often in a strike position whenever the tank was serviced; another was as "friendly" or "tame" as your snake appears to be. In fact, many herpetoculturists recommend the ball python as a first snake for anyone considering purchasing a larger boid or python because of its small size and docile nature. Movement of the snake towards the stroke, as in petting, is not unusual. I have iguanas, a Jackson's chameleon, and a ball python that seem to enjoy it (unlike the snake which has a transparent scale over the eye, the lizards actually close their eyes in response to stroking). Although untested, moving towards the stroke is likely a comfort behavior. The captive animal in a tank will often rub against objects (if provided) like bricks, logs, etc. which help slough skin before shedding (ecdysis), remove external parasites, or maybe just feels good. As an ectotherm, it may be even more rewarding for the animal to rub up against a warm stimulus like a human fingertip. The most detailed information about the ball python (also called royal python) is available through booklets published by the Herpetocultural Library, Advanced Vivarium Systems, PO Box 76, Lakeside, CA 92040 and in several issues of Vivarium which is published by American Federation of Herpetoculturists, PO Box 300067, Escondido, CA 92030-0067, Tel: (619) 747-4948. AFH also has a useful website. -Mike Michael Kreger, MS Animal Welfare Information Center National Agricultural Library 10301 Baltimore Blvd. Beltsville, MD 20705 Tel: (301) 504-5563 Fax: (301) 504-7125 Email: MKREGER@NAL.USDA.GOV On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Reed Davis wrote: > I just got a baby Ball Python and have noticed that when > handled. Scratched, and petted it reacts much like a cat(excuse the > compairison) but she arches up twords the stroke, reptiles are not > normally thought of as an animal to "pet" but has it even been > considered? > I also am looking on general information on handeling and > interesting facts about Ball Pythons and pythons in general. > THANKS in ANTISIPATION > MAREN (e-mail address REED) > > From: IN%"harrism@sask.usask.ca" 19-JUN-1997 21:53:04.30 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "etho-list" CC: IN%"HARRISM@sask.usask.ca" Subj: McLibel and cruelty to farm animals Dear all, Today in Britain a verdict was reached in the long-running 'McLibel' case; two activists were found to have libelled McDonalds Corporation and McDonalds Restaurants Ltd by distributing a pamphlet alleging, among other things, that McDonalds food is unhealthy (surely not??), that McDonalds uses unfair and exploitive labour practices, and that the production and slaughter of farm animals is cruel. Although the judge ruled that the corporation had been libelled, he agreed that some of the activists' allegations were "justified, true in substance and fact". Below is part of the text of the judge's summary concerning allegations of cruelty to animals (available at http://www.McSpotlight.org/home/html). Specifically, Chief Justice Bell agreed that the severe movement restriction experienced by laying hens in battery cages and by sows in dry stalls is cruel, as are some slaughter methods, particularly those used for poultry, where stunning is inadequate. Some handling methods used for poultry were also deemed to be cruel. Chief Justice Bell commented: " ...the ... Plaintiffs are culpably responsible for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which are used to produce their food". This seems to me rather significant. Firstly, certain practices have been stated unequivocably to be cruel: what actions will the British government (or others) decide to take in response to this judgement? Secondly, and even more interestingly, if McDonalds are culpably responsible for cruel food production practices, then so are millions of restaurants and, presumably, millions of farmers. Might we see the spectacle of farmers being sued for cruelty for practising 'normal' intensive production? Read the extract from the verdict and tell me what you think. - Moira Harris McDonald's Corporation First Plaintiff and McDonald's Restaurants Limited Second Plaintiff VS Helen Marie Steel First Defendant and David Morris Second Defendant before The Hon. Mr Justice Bell SUMMARY OF THE JUDGEMENT (read in Open Court on Thursday, 19th June 1997) The rearing and slaughter of animals After advertising, the leaflet turns to the rearing and slaughter of animals. In my view the leaflet means that the Plaintiffs are culpably responsible for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which are used to produce their food. In particular, some of the animals, especially chickens and pigs, spend their whole lives without access to open air and sunshine and without freedom of movement; animals waiting to be slaughtered often struggle to escape; cattle waiting to be slaughtered become frantic as they watch the animal before them in the killing-line being prodded, beaten electrocuted and knifed; and the methods used to stun the animals are so inefficient that animals are frequently still fully conscious when they have their throats cut. Birds are animals. The charge is clearly defamatory. It is expressed as statements of fact. My conclusions so far as justification of the defamatory message of this part of the leaflet complained of is concerned, are as follows. Laying hens which are used to produce eggs for the First and Second Plaintiffs spend their whole lives in battery cages without access to open air or sunlight and without freedom of movement. I do not find the lack of open air or sunshine to be cruel, but the severe restriction of movement is cruel and the First and Second Plaintiffs are culpably responsible for that cruel practice. Broiler chickens which are used to produce meat for the First and Second Plaintiffs' food spend their whole lives in broiler houses without access to open air or sunshine, I do no find this in itself cruel. However, they spend the last few days of their lives with very little room to move. The severe restriction of movement over those last few days is cruel and the First and Second Plaintiffs are culpably responsible for that cruel practice. A small, but not insignificant proportion of the sows which produce pigs which contribute to the supply of pork for the Second Plaintiff's food in the U.K. spend virtually the whole of their lives in dry sow stalls, with no access to the open air and sunshine and without freedom of movement. I do not find the lack of open air or sunshine to be cruel, but the severe restriction of movement is cruel and the Second Plaintiff is culpably responsible for that cruel practice. Some pigs which are used to make the Second Plaintiff's food in the U.K. spend the whole of their lives indoors and all or virtually all of them spend a significant part of their lives indoors. The situation is probably the same for the pigs which are used to make the Second Plaintiff's food in the U.S. On the evidence which I have heard about their living conditions, I do no find this to be cruel, however. It was not shown that cattle which are used to produce the Plaintiffs' food spend any significant part of their lives without access to open air and sunshine and without freedom of movement. Nevertheless in my JUDGEMENT the restriction of movement of laying hens throughout their lives in the U.K. and the U.S., and of broiler chickens in their last days in the U.K. and the U.S., and of some sows for virtually the whole of their lives in the U.K. is quite enough to justify the first particular charge of culpable responsibility for cruel practices in the way some of the animals spend their lives. Although many cattle are frightened by the noise and unfamiliar surroundings of the abattoirs in which they are slaughtered and some cattle are urged on by electric prods, the charges that animals waiting to be slaughtered often struggle to escape and that cattle waiting to be slaughtered become frantic as they watch the animal before them in the killing-line being prodded, beaten, electrocuted and knifed are not justified so far as animals which are used to produced the Plaintiffs' food are concerned. It was not shown that cattle or pigs which are used to produced the Plaintiffs' food are frequently still fully conscious when they have their throats cut. A proportion of the chickens which are used to produce the First and Second Plaintiffs' food are still fully conscious when they have their throats cut. This is a cruel practice for which the Plaintiffs are culpably responsible. The proportion of such chickens is very small, but the number of chickens is so large that the allegation that animals are frequently still fully conscious when they have their throats cut is justified. Although not all the particular charges are justified, in my overall JUDGEMENT those that are justified, relating to the restriction of movement of battery hens, broiler chickens and chickens who have their throats cut while still fully conscious are sufficient to justify the general charge that the First and Second Plaintiffs are culpably responsible for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which are used to produce their food. There are other cruel practices affecting chickens which are used to provide the Plaintiffs' food; calcium deficit resulting in osteopaenia in battery hens, the restriction of broiler breeders' feed with the result that they go hungry although bred for appetite, leg problems in broilers bred for weight, rough handling of broilers taken for slaughter and pre-stun electric shocks suffered by broilers on the way to slaughter. Those matters, for which the Second Plaintiff or both Plaintiffs are in my JUDGEMENT culpably responsible, go to strengthen my view that the sting of this part of the leaflet to the effect that the First and Second Plaintiffs are culpably responsible for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which are used to produce their food is justified, true in substance and in fact. From: IN%"jcha@u.washington.edu" "James Ha" 19-JUN-1997 22:09:27.34 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Automatic reply from J.C. Ha I'm currently attending the annual Animal Behavior Society meeting in Maryland. This is an automatic reply to your mail... I have received your mail, and will be checking email from the conference. However, most responses will await my return to the office on 30 June. Cheers, Jim Ha From: IN%"d.arey@ab.sac.ac.uk" 20-JUN-1997 02:51:39.89 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Pig flooring systems Dear All I have just completed a study for UFAW on different types of bedding for pigs and I hope to present the results at the UK and Eire ISAE Winter Meeting, London. I would be interested to hear from or know of anyone who is working on flooring systems for pigs, particularly in relation 'environmental enrichment' techniques and the performance of 'abnormal' behaviours such as tail-biting. Thanks Dale Dale Arey Animal and Feed Technology SAC Craibstone Estate Bucksburn Aberdeen, AB21 9YA UK AB21 9YA Tel: 01224 711058 From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 20-JUN-1997 05:18:04.16 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: I'll be away for 3.5 weeks To anyone interested, I shall be in wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen for a few weeks. Meanwhile I'll unsubscribe from the net. Mike Appleby From Sunday 22nd June until Tuesday 15th July I am: c/o Professor Peter Sandoe Department of Philosophy University of Copenhagen Njalsgade 80 DK 2300 Copenhagen S Denmark Tel +45 3532 8851 Fax +45 5370 3573 Email psand@coco.ihi.ku.dk From: IN%"imiuvezo@imiucca.csi.unimi.it" "Istituto di Zootecnica Veterinaria" 20-JUN-1997 06:54:23.52 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAE Mediterranean Region meeting To all the I.S.A.E. Mediterranean Region Members Dear I.S.A.E. Mediterranean Region member, as you already know (you can also read it on the I.S.A.E. Newsletter - Issue 12 - March 1997), I proposed to have a brief meeting of Mediterranean Region members at the I.S.A.E. Congress in Prague next August. I hope that many people from our Region will partecipate in that informal meeting; in the meanwhile I’d like to receive from all of you, by the end of July, a written indication and/or suggestion for a nomination for the new I.S.A.E. Mediterranean Region Secretary, in order to give the indication to the I.S.A.E. Council meeting. Thanking you very much for your attention, and looking forward to hearing from you or to meeting you in Prague, best regards. Marina Verga From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 20-JUN-1997 09:45:29.81 To: IN%"harrism@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "etho-list" Subj: RE: McLibel and cruelty to farm animals Moira, What I find particularly interesting is the highly selective way the judge identifies certain factors as cruel and others not. I wouldn't be too surprised if one or two people on this list were witnesses. But of course I wouldn't expect them to comment on that here.......;-) Interesting stuff. If it generates some public interest in debating what exactly is meant by cruelty, how does it apply to farm animal production, what is acceptable welfare and so forth, I guess that has to be a good thing. Jon ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Watts (___) ) ) University of Saskatchewan |o o|___________/ ( Dept of Herd Medicine O \#/ | ) and Theriogenology |bser| | Statistical | ( Western College of Vet. Med. |vati| | analysis | ) 52 Campus Drive |ons.| \___________/| *& Saskatoon ------ || || %$#@ S7N 1B4 / \ || || ^*@*~ Canada &^%%#$@ wattsjon@duke.usask.ca "The Holy Cow" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 20-JUN-1997 14:24:37.61 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: NA ISAE abstracts (long) 3rd North American Regional Meeting of the International Society for Applied Ethology Lennoxville, Quebec, CANADA June 7th, 1997 Organizing Committee: Leah Braithewaite, Jeff Rushen, Joe Stookey, Janice Swanson, Dan Weary Hosted by: Dairy and Swine Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada. EFFECT OF FARROWING IN A PEN OR CRATE ON SOW BEHAVIOR, ENDOCRINOLOGY, INNATE IMMUNITY, AND PRODUCTIVITY. Lay, Jr., D.C., J.E. Cunnick, S.P. Ford, and L.M. Hohenshell Iowa State University, Ames, IA. The confinement method used during farrowing has the potential to affect both sow and piglet welfare. Allowing the sow freedom to move and turn permits her to express some maternal behaviors which she is motivated to perform prior to farrowing. Restricting the movement of the sow decreases the number of piglets crushed after farrowing. It would appear that the sow's welfare must be compromised for that of the piglet at this critical time. However, a need exists to firmly establish the degree to which the sow's welfare is compromised and how (if) this compromise affects production and health. Eighteen Yorkshire x Landrace sows were assigned to farrow either in a pen (n = 10) or a crate (n = 8). The outward dimensions of both the pen and crate were 1.5 x 2.3 m; however, the pen allowed the sow virtually the entire area, whereas, the crate allowed the sow a 2.3 x .58 m area in which to live. At approximately 12 days prior to their expected farrowing date, the sows were moved from gestation stalls into their respective treatments. At approximately 10 days prior to expected farrowing, sows were fitted with indwelling vena cava catheters. Blood samples were collected throughout the week prior to expected farrowing and for 2 weeks post-farrowing. Blood samples were analyzed to determine cortisol and progesterone concentrations. Additionally, peripheral monocytes and granulocytes were isolated from the blood samples to determine their ability to phagocytose bacteria. Behavior was recorded using time-lapse photography starting at the initiation of farrowing (emergence of the first pig) until 48 hours after farrowing. The time spent lying, standing and sitting, as well as the number of position changes and nursing bouts were recorded from these videotapes. Production data recorded included: farrowing duration, number of piglets born alive, number stillborn, number crushed, birth weights, 7-day weights, etc. The farrowing environment did not effect peripheral hormone concentrations (P > .10). Both plasma cortisol and progesterone declined from 4 days pre-farrowing to 4 days post-farrowing (P < .002). Behavior did not differ between treatments with sows from both groups exhibiting an equal incidence of position changes and amount of time spent lying, standing, and sitting (P > .10). The only production parameter that tended to be effected by treatment was in net pigs weaned per sow (net pig = number born/number weaned), with sows in crates weaning more pigs than sows in pens (P < .07) even though crushing was not affected by treatment (P > .20). Phagocytic ability of monocytes and granulocytes did not change during the 4 days post-farrowing in sows housed either in gestation crates or pens (P > .10). Sows in this experiment gestated in crates. Therefore, sows housed in farrowing pens had a change in their environment that entailed a greater degree of movement when compared to the sows housed in farrowing crates. Whether the housing environment should be changed during the critical period around parturition is a valid concern. This study indicates that sows readily adapt to this change in environment and that no adverse effects on behavior, plasma cortisol, plasma progesterone, or innate immunity result. HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONSHIPS IN WILD BOARS Alain Rivet and Renee Bergeron, University of Laval. A study was conducted with nineteen juvenile female wild boars to evaluate their behavioural response to the attitude of the stockperson. The boars were randomly distributed between six 25 X 12= foot dirtlot pens (five pens of three boars and one of four) and one of the following two treatments was randomly attributed to each pen: the positive treatment, where the experimenter sat down in the pen with the animals, distributing fruit for 15 minutes, 5 days a week; and, the control treatment, where the experimenter simply walked in the pen, paying no attention to the boars for one minute, 5 days a week. These treatments were applied for six weeks, at the end of which three tests were conducted: experimenter, stranger and novel object. For each test, three types of measures were taken: "time of first approach", "number of entries" (inside a 1m diameter circle centered on the experimenter and/or stranger) and "time spent" in the circle. In the tests with a novel object, the "number of contacts" between the boars and the object was also recorded. The boars with the positive treatment took less time to approach both the experimenter (P<0.05) and the stranger (P<0.01) than the control ones. They entered the circle more often (P<0.01, experimenter and stranger tests) and spent more time in it (P<0.01, experimenter and stranger tests). No differences were found between treatments in the novel object test (P>0.05 for all measures taken). These data suggest that a positive treatment will increase the boars' propensity to approach and interact with human beings. From the results of the tests with a stranger, we conclude that either wild boars generalize to all humans the kind of treatment previously received from the experimenter, or that they are unable to discriminate between humans at all. Finally, a positive treatment does not seem to increase the boars' exploratory behaviour since no difference in the amount of interaction with the novel object was found between treatments. SEGREGATED EARLY WEANING: EFFECTS OF WEANING AT 12 DAYS-OF-AGE ON SUBSEQUENT BEHAVIOUR OF PIGLETS Harold W. Gonyou and D. Lee Whittington. Prairie Swine Centre, Inc. Saskatoon, SK. Segregated Early Weaning (SEW) of piglets at less than 14 days-of-age is becoming an increasingly common procedure in North America. Such early weaning has become commercially feasible through the use of highly palatable feedstuffs which increase intake during the week following weaning. A study was conducted to determine the effects of early weaning on the behaviour of piglets. Thirty-two litters were weaned at either 12 or 21 days-of-age. During the subsequent 48 h, pigs were videotaped and the tapes used to determine the development of eating behaviour using scan sampling. Pigs weaned at 21 days-of-age spent more time eating than those weaned at 12 days-of-age. Although both age groups ate little (< 3% of time) during the initial 12 h, those weaned at 21 days-of-age began increasing time spent eating during the subsequent 12 h and reached a normal level of approximately 9% of time spent eating by 36 h post-weaning. No noticeable increase in eating occurred among those weaned at 12 days-of-age until after 36 h, at which point the level quickly increased to 10% of time. During the subsequent 6 wk, live scan sampling revealed that pigs weaned at 12 days-of-age spent more time eating (11.6 vs. 10.5%), drinking (1.65 vs. 1.22%), nosing other pigs (1.23 vs. .74%), and chewing on objects (2.48 vs. 2.33%) than did those weaned at 21 days-of-age. Nosing of other pigs peaked during the 2nd and 3rd weeks after weaning in both age groups, but the maximum level was approximately twice as high for those weaned at 12 as for those weaned at 21 days-of-age. Those weaned at 12 days-of-age continued to nose and chew other piglets more during the grow/finish period than did those weaned at 21 days-of-age. Partial, within pen, correlations indicated that inactive pigs grew faster (r=.18) and were less likely to nose or chew other pigs (r=-.15 and -.26, respectively). Nosing other pigs and being nosed were negatively correlated (r=-.17), but neither were correlated with rate of gain. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS ON THE PRE-WEANING BEHAVIOUR OF CROSS-FOSTERED PIGLETS. S. Robert1, G.P. Martineau2 1 Agriculture et agro-alimentaire Canada, Lennoxville, 2Faculte de medecine veterinaire, Universite de Montreal. Quebec, Canada. Cross-fostering is widely use in segregated early weaning units in order to maximize and uniformize body weights. However, cross-fostering does not only have positive effects on the piglets. Extensive cross-fostering of piglets maintains a continuous cycle of PRRS transmission, thereby increasing preweaning mortality and postweaning uncontrolled PRRS infections. Moreover, repeated changes from one litter to another could have detrimental effects on the behavior of sows and piglets. Indeed, suckling piglets develop teat fidelity within the first days after birth and suckle almost always at the same teat or pair of teats until weaning. Teat fidelity is an advantage to suckling young because it reduces competition and fighting at the udder. Piglets that do not develop teat fidelity fight a lot throughout lactation and have a lower weight gain. Previous studies reported that only 25 to 50 % of piglets fostered after two days of age had suckled six hours after adoption. Moreover, piglets fostered at seven days of age had a reduced weight gain.These observations suggest that cross-fostering disrupts the teat order and induces fightings between resident and fostered piglets. This hypothesis was tested in the following experiment. Twenty-four multiparous sows were distributed between control and treated groups. All the litters were uniformized at 10q1 piglets the day after birth. Once every three days, all piglets were weighed and cross-fosterings were done between two treated litters. The three heavier piglets of one litter were exchanged with the three lighest piglets of the other litter. In this way, a piglet could be fostered one to six times, the last fostering being done at 16 days of lactation. The behavior of sows and piglets was noted during the first two hours following cross-fostering for the treated litters or weighing for the control litters. The number of fights was much higher in treated litters than in control litters and 80 % of these fights involved a resident and a fostered piglet. Most of these were teat disputes where piglets fought to gain access to a specific teat. Non-productive milk let-downs were more frequent in treated than in control litters during the two hours of observation, whereas sows from treated litters had less successfull milkings Sows have more milkings after fostering but that many of these milkings are non-productive. Typically, piglets started to fight and vocalize at the udder as soon as the sow took the milking position and began to grunt. The sow showed frequent signs of nervousness while lying down and suddenly stood up or sat down after a few minutes. Data on lying behavior reflect this pattern of behavior. Indeed, the percentage of time spent lying on the side was 17 to 32 % lower in treated sows than in control sows from days 4 to 16 of lactation. Also, treated sows snapped at their piglets more often than control sows and this aggressive behavior was almost always directed towards a fostered piglet. These data confirm the importance of teat stability in suckling piglets and question the validity of cross-fostering from the welfare point of view. Indeed, our data show that cross-fostering is stressfull for piglets and sows in the short-term. Additional research will have to be done in order to determine the impact of this management practice on aggressive behavior of piglets and on later maternal and reproductive performance of sows. Moreover, the high frequency of face lacerations noted in fostered piglets suggests that cross-fostering may be one of the factors involved in the development of exsudative epidermatitis. These results show that in order to progress towards a more balanced form of intensive production and improve husbandry conditions, we will have to take welfare into consideration when making technical decisions . EFFECT OF CASTRATION ON BEHAVIOR AND PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASURES OF STRESS IN YOUNG CAVLES J. Morrow-Tesch and B. Jones, USDA-ARS Livestock Behavior Research Unit, W. Lafayette, IN 47907, USA. Castration may be performed shortly after birth in cattle. Therefore, it is important to understand how different methods of castration may affect the newborn's activity level and response to such a management stressor. One to three day old beef calves were randomly assigned to one of three treatments: surgical castration (n=14), banding (n=14) and control (n=14). Calves were restrained for a similar length of time in all three treatments. Blood samples were collected to measure total white blood cell numbers, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios, and cortisol, alpha-1 acid glycoprotein, haptoglobin, and immunoglobulin G concentrations. Behavior was continuously video recorded for 68 hr. following castration. A treatment by day interaction was seen for the time spent lying (P < .001), standing (P < .001), nursing (P < .001) and performance of movement behaviors (P = .011). A treatment by sample effect was also identified for cortisol concentration (P = .006) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (P < .01). These data suggest that banding may have a more immediate effect on time spent nursing, however, after the first 24 hr. no difference was observed between treatments. Surgically castrated calves may display a delayed response as indicated by an increase in time spent lying on day 3. TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE NONNUTRITIVE SUCKING IN CALVES Chantal L. Gaboury and Anne Marie de Passille, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lennoxville, Canada. Producers deem that calves sucking each other (cross-sucking) is undesirable and wish to control it. Following a milk-meal, calves are highly motivated to suck and will suck an artifical teat that does not deliver milk (nonnutritive sucking). Our objective was to determine whether drinking water or having hay would reduce nonnutritive sucking. Fourteen Holstein calves sucked their milk through artificial nutritive teats and we measured the amount of nonnutritive sucking following the milk-meal. Replacing the milk-covered nutritive teat with a clean, dry teat did not reduce nonnutritive sucking compared to leaving the nutritive teat in place (P=0.7). Replacing the nutritive teat by a clean teat that delivered 100 ml of water reduced the nonnutritive sucking that followed the water treatment by 59% (P<0.01). Delivering 1L of water through the milk-covered teat also reduced the ensuing nonnutritive sucking by 62% (P<0.01). However, when the time taken to drink the water was included as nonnutritive sucking, there were no differences among treatments (P=0.1). This suggests that after a milk meal, calves have a set amount of time during which they are motivated to suck and that neither the taste nor the ingestion of water reduces that time. In the second experiment, the calves were given hay immediately following the milk-meal. This reduced nonnutritive sucking by 55% compared merely distracting them by pretending to give them hay (P<0.01). Making hay available at the begining of the meal and then distracting the calf at the end of the meal reduced nonnutritive sucking by 58% (P=0.01). The motivation to eat hay competes with the motivation to suck after the meal, but the motivation to suck is too strong to be reduced by distraction. We conclude that providing water through a teat or offering hay reduces the ensuing sucking motivation, which may help in the control of cross-sucking. DAIRY COWS' FEAR OF PEOPLE REDUCES MILK YIELD AND AFFECTS BEHAVIOUR AT MILKING Jeffrey Rushen, Anne Marie de Passille, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lennoxville, Canada. Lene Munksgaard, National Institute of Animal Science, Foulum, Denmark. We examined how cows' fear of people affects milk yield and milking efficiency. Lactating cows (14) were each handled by two people. One handled the cows gently (brushing or offering food) while the other treated them aversively (hitting or occasional use of a cattle prod). After 12 aversive and 12 gentle treatments over 3d, the cows stood further from the aversive than from the gentle handler in a standard test (P<.05). Thus, the cows could distinguish between handlers and had learned to associate the treatments with a specific person. During 4 milkings, at intervals of 2-3 d, we recorded duration of milking, milk yield and behaviours affecting the efficiency and safety of milking. After milking the cows were injected i.v. with oxytocin and re-milked. During two milkings either the gentle or the aversive handlers stood in front of the cows. During two other baseline milkings the handlers were not present. The presence of the gentle handler did not change milk yield or residual milk compared to the baseline milkings. The presence of the aversive handler reduced milk yield by 10% compared to the baseline milkings, and doubled residual milk compared to the baseline milkings and to when the gentle handler was present at milking (P<.05). The presence of both handlers decreased the amount of kicking (P<.05). Duration of udder preparation and incidence of detachment of the milking machine were not affected. Dairy cows' fear of a specific person, who is present at milking, can substantially reduce milk yield, possibly by reducing oxytocin secretion, but may not make the cows more difficult to handle at milking. THE USE OF TRAINER COWS TO REDUCE STRESS IN NEWLY ARRIVED FEEDLOT CALVES K. S. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, J. M. Stookey, D. L. Godson, J. M. Watts, G. Flannigan and C. Waltz. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,SK. wo hundred and forty-eight calves (270 (+/-) 2 kg) of mixed breed were randomly allotted to trainer cow (TC) and no cow (NC) treatments to determine the effect of the presence of a "trainer" animal on the health and performance of newly arrived feedlot calves. The treatments were compared by measuring weight gain, antibiotic treatment rates, immune function and behaviour. Calves in the TC group were housed with a pregnant unfamiliar cow accustomed to the feedlot pen while the NC group were housed in the absence of a cow. Upon arrival at the feedlot all calves were ear-tagged and vaccinated with Clostridial and Pasteurella haemolytica vaccines and housed in groups of 8-13, in 22 separate feedlot pens. Calves were weighed and had rectal temperatures (RT) taken on d 0, 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 after arrival. Calves were considered "sick" and administered antibiotics on each weigh day if they had a RT of 40.5 C or higher. Blood samples were collected via venipuncture on d 0, 3, 7, and 21. Samples were analyzed for serum haptoglobin (an acute phase protein) concentrations and leukotoxin antibody titers using an ELISA based immunoassay. Behavioural observations were made using instantaneous scan sampling at 10 min intervals for a 9 h period in the first 3 d. On d 4-10 observations were made between 0800-1000 and 1500-1700 h only. Behaviours recorded included the amount of time the calves spent walking, lying, standing, drinking and feeding. TC calves had lower average daily gains (ADG) than NC animals on d 3 (P < .05). No treatment differences in antibiotic treatment rates, haptoglobin or antibody titers were observed. TC calves had higher standing and lower lying frequencies than NC calves (P < .05). TC calves were observed to eat and drink more frequently than NC animals (P < .05) however, this was not reflected in their ADG. Results indicate that the presence of a cow in the pen of newly arrived feedlot calves does not appear to improve calf health or performance. However, based on feeding behaviour the cow may help to draw calves up to the feed bunk. EQUINE BEHAVIOR AND WELFARE: THE PMU CONTROVERSY Katherine Houpt, Kevin Kunkel, Jennifer Johnson, Virgilla Tegiacchi and Allen Bregman. College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, US. Tens of thousands of pregnant mares each year are used to produce urine for use as an estrogen source (Pregnant Mare Urine or PMU) for post-menopausal women. The conditions under which these mares are kept has been criticized by some animal rights groups who have brought the situation to the attention of the public. The most controversial aspects of the production system are water restriction, straight stall confinement and lack of exercise. In order to determine objectively if any or all of these were stressful or physically harmful to the horses, we compared the behavior and fluid balance of mares when water restricted and when confined and exercise restricted. In the first experiment, six mares were water restricted from ad libitum (6.9 L/100 kg body weight) to 5, 4 and 3 L/100 kg body weight. Each level of restriction was imposed for a week. When restricted, the mares were clinically dehydrated based on skin turgor, and their plasma osmolality rose from 283 + 1 mosmol/kg to 293 + 3 mosmol/kg. The mares ate less and lost weight, but plasma cortisol did not increase. In the second experiment, 8 mares were confined for 6 months in straight stalls. Four were exercised by release in a paddock as a group daily for 30 min. The other four mares were exercised once every 14 days. Weekly 24 hr videorecording was used to compare the behavior of the two groups. While stalled the exercised mares spent less time standing than the non-exercised horses (44 vs 53.1%). When released in the paddock after two weeks of confinement the mares trotted more (12.4 vs 2.7%) and grazed less (8.4 vs 18.5%) than those who were exercised daily. There was no difference in cortisol levels between the groups. The most interesting finding was that only two of 8 mares lay down, and then for less than 0.1% of the time. The horses would apparently enter REM sleep on their feet and catch themselves or fall to their knees. Supported by 96-35204-3673 NRI Competitive Grants Program/USDA BEHAVIORAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF HORSES TO INITIAL TRAINING: THE COMPARISON BETWEEN PASTRUE VERSUS STALLED HORSES E. Rivera; S. Benjamin; A. Morrison; L. Callender; B. D. Nielsen and A. J. Zanella. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Pasture kept horses have the ability to interact socially and are exposed to a richer environment but have less contact with humans. Horses kept in stalls have greater exposure to human contact however they lack social interaction. There are evidences, for several species, that learning ability may be impaired in animals housed in social isolation or barren environment. In the present work the behavior and physiological responses to initial training was monitored in stall (S) and pasture (P) kept horses. Sixteen, 2 year old Arabian horses were involved in the present study. Twelve horses were subjected to a standardized "training procedure" (6P & 6S) and 4 (2P & 2S) animals were selected as control (C). Training was carried out by two trainers who handled both pasture and stall kept horses. The horses, which were never ridden before, were kept in pasture or in individual stalls for three months prior to this experiment. Behavioral observation assessing the interactions between the trainer and the horse in training were collected using video recorder and data was analyzed using a behavior observation software. Measures of plasma cortisol were monitored by radioimmunoassay in blood samples collected by jugular puncture in training days 1, 7, 21 and 28. Samples were collected prior to training (basal), immediately post-training (pt), 15 minutes post training (pt15) and 60 minutes post-training (pt60). During the first training day, horses were haltered and lead to the round training pen where they were released. The horse was caught and gradually the trainer began to get the horse accustomed to handling, being saddled, mounted and ridden within an average of 30 minutes. The horses were encouraged to walk, trot and canter in each direction. Control horses were released into the round pen and left to explore the environment for 30 minutes. Additional tasks were incorporated during days 7, 21 and 28 of training protocol. Horses kept in stalls showed significantly higher frequency of behavioral patterns associated with resistance to training than pasture kept horses. Bucking and jumping (S=3.83 q 10.81SEM and P=1.09 q 10.30SEM, p<0.05) head tossing (S=5.17 q 11.29SEM and P=2.04 q 1.74SEM ) tucking of tail (S=6.08 q 11.35SEM and P=2.09 q 1.526SEM ) were performed more by stall housed horses. Stall housed horses ran for longer periods in the training pen than pasture kept horses (S=7.10 q 11.04SEM and P=2.21 q 1.753SEM ). Increase in salivary cortisol in response to training, tended to be higher in stall housed horses for all the samples taken in the four experimental days, but the difference only approached significance (p=0.08, df, F-2.62) in samples collected immediately post-training (pt). The highest increase in plasma cortisol levels was observed in the first training day and the lowest was observed at the day 28. The difference among training days was significant (df 3; f=7.16; p=0.0004). Differences between basal cortisol levels and post-training levels were not evident for control horses in days 7, 21 and 28 post-training. Effective training may be accomplished in rather short time using humane techniques. Housing conditions seems to have a significant effect on the behavioral responses of horses to training but no effect on plasma cortisol levels. These results may generate recommendations that could be given to horse owners on which training technique and housing conditions that would maximize the success of training procedures. NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL CORRELATES ASSOCIATED WITH BEHAVIORAL TRAITS IN MINK A.J.Zanella1* and G.M. Mason2 1Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA, 2University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Captive minks (Mustela vison) often develop stereotypies, which are repetitive behaviors with no apparent function. Minks selectively bred to be inactive or to show stereotypies were used in this experiment. Behavior observation was carried out for 8 weeks. Seventeen males, were chosen for this study Group A minks (n=6) were selected from the inactive line, and group B (n=6) minks from the stereotypic line. A group of 5 additional minks (group C) were removed from a randomly bred population,and showed similar levels of activity to group B but had no stereotypies. Animals were euthanized by intraperitonial pentobarbital infusion and blood and brain tissue were collected 5 minutes post-injection. Cortisol and beta-endorphin levels were measured in plasma using radioimmunoassay (RIA). White blood cells (WBC) were isolated, lysed, and intracellular dynorphin levels were monitored by RIA. Brains were removed and norepinephrine (NE), epinephrine (EP) and dopamine (DA) levels were monitored in extracts of frontal cortex (FC) using HPLC. Serotonin levels were measured in FC tissue using ELISA. Stereotypies were not observed in group A. Group B and Group C performed stereotypies for 43.8 % and 1.8% of observation time,respectively. Cortisol levels (ng/ml 1 SEM)) were higher in inactive animals (A= 84.37 19.66, B= 31.66 1 11.74 and C= 57.48 111.06) (p=0.01). High stereotypy animals had higher levels of intracellular dynorphin (pg/mg protein 1 SEM) in WBC than inactive or control animals (208.9 136.5; 108.38 125.66 and 62.9 15.37,p=0.01). There was no difference in plasma beta-endorphin, FC NE, EP and serotonin levels among the studied groups. Inactive animals had higher levels of DA (pg/5g protein) in the FC than control animals (A=53.82pg 1 12.88; B= 25.98 tissue 1 12.6, and C=3.66 tissue 1 0.45, p= 0.02). High intracellular dynorphin levels in WBC may reflect the concentration of this opioid peptide in the brain, and supports previous findings relating modulation of opioid system in association with abnormal behavior in animals. Further work is necessary to establish the significance of high DA in the FC and high plasma cortisol in inactive animals. Understanding the physiological mechanisms associated with stereotypies in minks may help in the development of objective indicators of welfare, and could be a useful model to study human neurological disorders characterized by behavior abnormalities. HYPER-AGGRESSIVENESS IN MALE BROILER BREEDER FOWL Suzanne T. Millman, Ian J.H. Duncan and Tina M.Widowski University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. Concerns have been raised by the broiler breeder industry regarding increased levels of aggression in males of certain strains. Males have been reported to savage and even kill females. Our previous work indicated that broiler breeder males were deficient in courtship behaviour and forced copulations more frequently than did commercial laying strain males. To investigate the problem of high levels of aggression, a 3x2 factorial was used to compare males of 3 genetic strains (2 broiler breeder lines and 1 commercial laying strain) at 2 feeding levels (restricted and ad libitum) during the breeding phase. All birds were reared according to the management guidelines for each strain. At 22 weeks of age, 12 pairs of males per strain were each penned with 20 females of a broiler breeder strain. Behaviour was sampled from each pen for six 10-minute periods at weeks 25, 27, 29, 33 and 37. Results indicated that broiler breeder males performed significantly more aggressive behaviour than did laying strains males (P<0.0001). As behaviour was not found to change significantly over time, data was pooled across age. Mean incidences of aggressive behaviour directed at males per 10 minute period were 0.24+/-0.03, 0.52+/-0.06 and 0.49+/-0.05 for the laying strain and broiler breeder strains A and B respectively. Full fed males were significantly more aggressive toward males than were restricted males (P<0.0001). Broiler breeder males showed more aggressive pecking directed at females than did laying strain males, with mean incidences per 10 minute period of 0.09+/-0.02, 0.85+/-0.12 and 0.53+/-0.06 for the laying strain and broiler breeder strains A and B respectively (P<0.0001). From this study, broiler breeder males were found to be more aggressive toward males and extremely aggressive toward females when compared with commercial laying strain males. Full fed males were the most aggressive. Few significant differences were found between the two broiler breeder strains. From: IN%"William_R_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu" 20-JUN-1997 15:05:59.25 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: "Science" and Domestication Dear All: I just received my copy of _Science_ today (June 20) and have not read the article on domestication of dogs. However, in the Research News section of this issue of Science (which is a general or lay person's summary of articles), I did note the following: "Many scientists are quite skeptical of Wayne's estimated date. 'It's a fascinating suggestion, syaing that dogs are 10 times older than we thought,' says Svante Paabo, a molecular geneticist at the University of Munich in Germany. But he and others caution that the mitochrondrial clock is none too reliable. "The date is very dubious - it's 135,000 years plus or minus about 300% says Stephen O'Brien (geneticist and chief of the Laboratory of Genomic Diversity at the National Cancer Institute in Frederick, Maryland). Those who study the archaeological record are even more doubtful. Says paleo-anthropologist Richard Klein of Stanford University, "There are no animal bones suggesting domesticated dogs - or domesticated anything - remotely approaching that time." I look forward to reading the article (and I was out of touch with email until yesterday and haven't as yet read all the email discussion on this topic). But by the way, I did note that James Serpell expressed that he was surprised (or something to that effect) that an article in the "Washington Post" was the basis for the beginning of this discussion. True, the quotes that I first criticized were reported in the Washington Post. However, it has been a full week between the time the Post first reported the information and the time I received my issue of _Science_. It is becoming more and more common for authors (and scientific journals) to use the popular press to report findings. Often this is accomplished through press releases (and sometimes press conferences) that contain prepared "quotes" from the authors. I don't know how the Post obtained their information, but regardless - when scientists participate in (and sometimes initiate) these popular press activities, then I contend the statements (quotes) by the scientists are fair game for criticism. And even though I still have not read the article, I don't see any reason to believe that simply on the basis of genetic diversity between dogs and wolves, that dogs were domesticated 135,000 years ago. Something remarkable happened to the genome of dogs and several other species (including humans) about 10 to 15 thousand years ago - and today we call these domesticated animals. These gentic changes profoundly changed the morphology and/or behavior of the species. The change was _not_ gradual (at least not gradual on the evolutionary time scale). Determination of the molecular basis of this change could be of enormous importance to animal agriculture and could completely alter our understanding of the genetic basis of animal behavior - which was the point that I was trying to make in my first message on this topic. To re-emphasize this point, I will take some liberties in a paraphrase of Snowden, "When the biochemists discover that 'domestication was _not_ the result of additive genetic variation,' then real progress will be made." Ray Stricklin University of Maryland W. Ray STRICKLIN Email:W_RAY_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu (ws31) Phone:51382 From: IN%"vanberchem@linkline.be" 21-JUN-1997 08:10:04.49 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: let me introduce myself Hi , I am a vet surgeon (grad ULG 89)working in urban SA practice with a peculiar interest for small animal behavioural disorders, troubles,pathologies or whatever might happen .Or whatever you call it :) As I worked first in England ,I started with the British vision of things.(UK and USA books) Back to Belgium I joined the Belgian "french school"Group -GERC-Groupe d'Etude et de Recherche sur le Comportement animal ( president Jo=EAl Dehasse) where I am getting more and more involved. I am a member of the ESVCE since...1995?/ Braunschweig congress, where I talked about the use of clonidine in behavioural disorders in dogs(if U were there, so U see who I am) My wish to keep learning has led me here ,where I am pleased to ...meet you. Dr.Christine Van Berchem mrcvs 260, rue haute = 1000 Brussels Belgium From: IN%"arkabc@arkanimals.com" 22-JUN-1997 17:32:40.60 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: articles of interest The electronic magazine, Ark Animal Tracks, has some new articles up. The newest include a new series on enrichment for domestic canids (in the "E" section) and leash training exotic felids (in the ABC's section). We invite you to take a look and to offer ideas for future articles. Diana Guerrero Ark Animals http://www.arkanimals.com arkabc@arkanimals.com From: IN%"lboyle@DAIRY.TEAGASC.IE" "LAURA BOYLE" 23-JUN-1997 09:32:54.92 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Polar heart rate monitor Hello all, I have recently acquired a Polar heart rate monitor which I intend to use in conjunction with behavioural observations and salivary cortisol measures for the measurement of 'stress' in gilts on first introduction to different dry sow housing sytems. If anyone has experience of using this apparatus with gilts (or any other species) I would be really interested in hearing from them. Apparently the transmitter must be modified to fit more securely around the pig and I am particularly interested in practical suggestions concerning this. Thanks a million! Laura Boyle From: IN%"lboyle@DAIRY.TEAGASC.IE" "LAURA BOYLE" 23-JUN-1997 09:35:23.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Violet Beatty's email address I recall seeing a request for Violet Beatty's email address on the network recently, did anyone find it? If so could you forward it to me please? Thanks, Laura Boyle From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 23-JUN-1997 09:55:58.02 To: IN%"lboyle@DAIRY.TEAGASC.IE" "LAURA BOYLE" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Polar heart rate monitor Laura, Ted Friend et al (1991) described a kind of spandex vest to fit on sows to hold electrodes and a heart rate transmitter in place. They used a telemetry system rather than the Polar monitor, but the general problem would seem to be the same. The paper explains in reasonable detail how the thing was made, or maybe they could give you more advice. Jon REFERENCE Ted. H. Friend, Gisela R. Dellmeier and Jerry L. Stuart (1991) A non-invasive telemetry system for obtaining heart rate from free-ranging swine. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 29, 343-348. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Watts (___) ) ) University of Saskatchewan |o o|___________/ ( Dept of Herd Medicine O \#/ | ) and Theriogenology |bser| | Statistical | ( Western College of Vet. Med. |vati| | analysis | ) 52 Campus Drive |ons.| \___________/| *& Saskatoon ------ || || %$#@ S7N 1B4 / \ || || ^*@*~ Canada &^%%#$@ wattsjon@duke.usask.ca "The Holy Cow" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, LAURA BOYLE wrote: > Hello all, > > I have recently acquired a Polar heart rate monitor which I > intend to use in conjunction with behavioural observations and > salivary cortisol measures for the measurement of 'stress' in gilts > on first introduction to different dry sow housing sytems. If anyone > has experience of using this apparatus with gilts (or any other > species) I would be really interested in hearing from them. > > Apparently the transmitter must be modified to fit more securely > around the pig and I am particularly interested in practical > suggestions concerning this. > > Thanks a million! > > Laura Boyle > From: IN%"Frank.Odberg@rug.ac.be" "Frank Odberg" 23-JUN-1997 10:48:08.76 To: IN%"lboyle@DAIRY.TEAGASC.IE" "LAURA BOYLE" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Polar heart rate monitor A quick reply. We had a lot of signal interruptions with tethered adult sows. It is necessary to connect the sender, not to the usual electrodes in the girdle, but to red-dots, after shaving and degreasing. You must also try to get the right position. Even then, movements caused interruptions. We used it together with the Observer 3.0. It is then necessary to edit the files and to delete the data corresponding to 0 HR. Maybe you will have less problems with younger animals (fat layer). We had few problems with adult horses (special girdle provided by Polar). Keep also the receiver within 1m distance. Wim Schouten (Wageningen) and Hans Hopster (Lelystad)(h.hopster@id.dlo.nl) have a lot of experience in that matter. Good luck! Prof.Dr. Frank O. Odberg University of Ghent Dpt. of Animal Nutrition, Genetics, Production and Ethology Heidestraat 19 B-9820 Merelbeke Belgium tel: +32-(0)9-2521941 fax: 5304 From: IN%"jnm13@cus.cam.ac.uk" 23-JUN-1997 11:21:27.99 To: IN%"lboyle@DAIRY.TEAGASC.IE" "LAURA BOYLE" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Polar heart rate monitor Hi Laura, >Apparently the transmitter must be modified to fit more securely >around the pig and I am particularly interested in practical >suggestions concerning this. I've found that there is no need to modify the transmitter belt, but positioning is all-important (see Marchant et el., 1995, AABS 46, 49-56). I know there are quite a few people who have struggled to get good consistent results with the unmodified belt, but once you've mastered the technique, it invariably works well. My only tips would be to keep the belt tight to prevent a loss of contact and to just apply gel to the centre of the electrode surfaces so that if you do have to swivel the belt up or down round the sow, the gel does not smear across the electrode gap and short out any signal. In recent studies using the Polar Vantage NV during approach tests, we have had only 1 gilt out of 95 lose electrical contact and give unusable results. Demonstrations can be given in person anywhere round the world, if you want to pay my airfare!! Good luck, Jeremy Dr. Jeremy Marchant, Animal Welfare and Human-Animal Interactions Group University of Cambridge, Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ES, UK. tel: +44 1223 330843 jnm13@cus.cam.ac.uk fax: +44 1223 330886 www-pdic.vet.cam.ac.uk/Peop_Serv/people.html#Jeremy From: IN%"9610916@mull.sms.ed.ac.uk" "VICTORIA SANDILANDS" 23-JUN-1997 15:30:38.41 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Polar heart rate monitor Dear Laura, We are currently using Polar heart rate monitors on calves, and to secure them from slipping, we are using wide (about 3 inch) elasticated belts that I THINK (not positive!) are designed for horses/ponies/foals to secure rugs with. This is put over the top of the normal heart rate monitor belt. If Phil is out there somewhere, he could confirm for you where these belts came from! Best wishes, Victoria Sandilands MSc in Applied Animal Behaviour and Animal Welfare student Institute of Ecology and Resource Management University of Edinburgh West Mains Road Edinburgh Scotland From: IN%"9610916@mull.sms.ed.ac.uk" "VICTORIA SANDILANDS" 23-JUN-1997 15:41:04.91 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Polar heart rate monitor From: VICTORIA SANDILANDS <9610916@mull.sms.ed.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Polar heart rate monitor To: "applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca" Dear Laura, We are currently using Polar heart rate monitors on calves, and to secure them from slipping, we are using wide (about 3 inch) elasticated belts that I THINK (not positive!) are designed for horses/ponies/foals to secure rugs with. This is put over the top of the normal heart rate monitor belt. If Phil is out there somewhere, he could confirm for you where these belts came from! Best wishes, Victoria Sandilands MSc in Applied Animal Behaviour and Animal Welfare student Institute of Ecology and Resource Management University of Edinburgh West Mains Road Edinburgh Scotland MSc in Applied Animal Behaviour and Animal Welfare student Institute of Ecology and Resource Management University of Edinburgh West Mains Road Edinburgh Scotland From: IN%"pbmcconn@facstaff.wisc.edu" 23-JUN-1997 16:54:15.57 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: help! Applied Ethologists: I will be co-hosting a TV series on understanding and solving behavior problems, to be shown on Discovery's new channel, Animal Planet, in fall. But the show JUST got finalized, and we need over 200 videos tapes to form the body of the show. The show needs 6 to 8 minute video tapes (any format) of just about any animal doing anything, as long as there is a question or problem associated with it. The tapes don't need to be professional, just home movies are fine, and don't even have to show the problem behavior if you can't get it on tape. We'll show the tape on TV, call the owner on the show and then I'll talk about what's happening as best as I can tell and what to do about it (if necessary). It would be great for our field if you could help out: here's our chance to let the public know about the science of animal behavior (in my experience, most people honestly don't even know that there is such a field and that some people spend there entire life studying behavior, like some people study medicine or physics). If you have any interest in thinking about providing a tape, or know someone would might, please call TOLL FREE 1 888 258-7387. The producers will send you a packet and instructions, and lots of cheering for your help. You can also email at cynthia@tvpetline.com Thanks thanks thanks, here's hoping it all works. Trisha *********************************** Patricia B. McConnell, Ph.D. Ass't Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Zoology, UW-Madison Birge Hall, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Applied Ethologist, Dog's Best Friend, Ltd. P.O. Box 447 Black Earth, Wisconsin 53515 608 767-2435 FAX 608 767-3726 (Send mail or calls here, not to UW) ************************************ From: IN%"pbmcconn@facstaff.wisc.edu" 23-JUN-1997 16:54:15.59 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Dominance A few comments regarding the discussion last week on dominance: I have defined "dominance" IN CANIDS for the past several years as "priority access to PREFERRED LIMITED RESOURCES" ---- I regret to say that I quite honestly don't know if I picked that entire phrase up from some wise person or text, or modified "priority access" to my own experience. I use it because my observations the last 10 years are consistent: dominant dogs do not insist on priority access to every resource, rather they do so to resources that they appear to hold as very important to them, that are often (though not always) rare. I do not agree that context dependent dominance is not a useful context, I think it rather accepts that all social hieararchies are not simple linear pecking orders. Frans du Waal did an elegant job of describing complicated social hieararchies in chimpanzees that discusses hieararchies in chimps as a complicated set of social relationships far more complex than pecking orders. Apologies if this has all been sorted out already, I've been gone alot and haven't read every posting. A quick note to anyone who might be inclined to email me: I will be in San Francisco for two months (taping a TV series on animal behavior and problem solving, see next post for details) but should have email access. I will be driving however, and since it might take some time to get re-connected I might be off email/lists for two weeks or so. Has anyone had experience living elsewhere but using the same email address? Any tips? Thanks Trisha *********************************** Patricia B. McConnell, Ph.D. Ass't Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Zoology, UW-Madison Birge Hall, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Applied Ethologist, Dog's Best Friend, Ltd. P.O. Box 447 Black Earth, Wisconsin 53515 608 767-2435 FAX 608 767-3726 (Send mail or calls here, not to UW) ************************************ From: IN%"M.Kiley-Worthington@exeter.ac.uk" "room 016 wsl" 24-JUN-1997 09:18:16.68 To: IN%"harrism@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "etho-list", IN%"HARRISM@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: McLibel and cruelty to farm animals On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:52:35 -0600 (CST) harrism@sask.usask.ca wrote: > From:harrism@sask.usask.ca> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:52:35 -0600 (CST) > Subject: McLibel and cruelty to farm animals > To: etho-list > Cc: HARRISM@sask.usask.ca > > >A fair judgement I would say cruelty need not be restricted to demonstrated suffering, although this ishow the judge is using it. Yes it may well cause further cases to be taken by welfare groups against farmers and others raising animals in intensive systems. Marthe Kiley-Worthington. > Dear all, > Today in Britain a verdict was reached in the long-running 'McLibel' case; > two activists were found to have libelled McDonalds Corporation and > McDonalds Restaurants Ltd by distributing a pamphlet alleging, among other > things, that McDonalds food is unhealthy (surely not??), that McDonalds > uses unfair and exploitive labour practices, and that the production and > slaughter of farm animals is cruel. Although the judge ruled that the > corporation had been libelled, he agreed that some of the activists' > allegations were "justified, true in substance and fact". Below is part > of the text of the judge's summary concerning allegations of cruelty to > animals (available at http://www.McSpotlight.org/home/html). > Specifically, Chief Justice Bell agreed that the severe movement > restriction experienced by laying hens in battery cages and by sows in dry > stalls is cruel, as are some slaughter methods, particularly those used > for poultry, where stunning is inadequate. Some handling methods used for > poultry were also deemed to be cruel. > Chief Justice Bell commented: " ...the ... Plaintiffs are culpably > responsible for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of > the animals which are used to produce their food". > This seems to me rather significant. Firstly, certain practices have been > stated unequivocably to be cruel: what actions will the British government > (or others) decide to take in response to this judgement? Secondly, and > even more interestingly, if McDonalds are culpably responsible for cruel > food production practices, then so are millions of restaurants and, > presumably, millions of farmers. Might we see the spectacle of farmers > being sued for cruelty for practising 'normal' intensive production? > > Read the extract from the verdict and tell me what you think. > > - Moira Harris > > > > McDonald's Corporation > First Plaintiff > and > McDonald's Restaurants Limited > Second Plaintiff > VS > Helen Marie > Steel > First Defendant > and > David Morris > Second Defendant > > before > The Hon. Mr Justice Bell > > SUMMARY OF THE JUDGEMENT > (read in Open Court on Thursday, 19th June > 1997) > > The rearing and slaughter of animals > > After advertising, the leaflet turns to the rearing > and slaughter of animals. > > In my view the leaflet means that the Plaintiffs > are culpably responsible > for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of > some of the animals > which are used to produce their food. In > particular, some of the animals, > especially chickens and pigs, spend their whole > lives without access to > open air and sunshine and without freedom of > movement; animals > waiting to be slaughtered often struggle to escape; > cattle waiting to be > slaughtered become frantic as they watch the animal > before them in the > killing-line being prodded, beaten electrocuted and > knifed; and the > methods used to stun the animals are so inefficient > that animals are > frequently still fully conscious when they have > their throats cut. > > Birds are animals. > > The charge is clearly defamatory. It is expressed > as statements of fact. > > My conclusions so far as justification of the > defamatory message of this > part of the leaflet complained of is concerned, are > as follows. > > Laying hens which are used to produce eggs for the > First and Second > Plaintiffs spend their whole lives in battery cages > without access to open > air or sunlight and without freedom of movement. I > do not find the lack > of open air or sunshine to be cruel, but the severe > restriction of > movement is cruel and the First and Second > Plaintiffs are culpably > responsible for that cruel practice. > > Broiler chickens which are used to produce meat for > the First and > Second Plaintiffs' food spend their whole lives in > broiler houses without > access to open air or sunshine, I do no find this > in itself cruel. However, > they spend the last few days of their lives with > very little room to move. > The severe restriction of movement over those last > few days is cruel and > the First and Second Plaintiffs are culpably > responsible for that cruel > practice. > > A small, but not insignificant proportion of the > sows which produce pigs > which contribute to the supply of pork for the > Second Plaintiff's food in > the U.K. spend virtually the whole of their lives > in dry sow stalls, with no > access to the open air and sunshine and without > freedom of movement. I > do not find the lack of open air or sunshine to be > cruel, but the severe > restriction of movement is cruel and the Second > Plaintiff is culpably > responsible for that cruel practice. > > Some pigs which are used to make the Second > Plaintiff's food in the > U.K. spend the whole of their lives indoors and all > or virtually all of them > spend a significant part of their lives indoors. > The situation is probably > the same for the pigs which are used to make the > Second Plaintiff's food > in the U.S. On the evidence which I have heard > about their living > conditions, I do no find this to be cruel, however. > > It was not shown that cattle which are used to > produce the Plaintiffs' > food spend any significant part of their lives > without access to open air > and sunshine and without freedom of movement. > > Nevertheless in my JUDGEMENT the restriction of > movement of laying > hens throughout their lives in the U.K. and the > U.S., and of broiler > chickens in their last days in the U.K. and the > U.S., and of some sows > for virtually the whole of their lives in the U.K. > is quite enough to justify > the first particular charge of culpable > responsibility for cruel practices in > the way some of the animals spend their lives. > > Although many cattle are frightened by the noise > and unfamiliar > surroundings of the abattoirs in which they are > slaughtered and some > cattle are urged on by electric prods, the charges > that animals waiting to > be slaughtered often struggle to escape and that > cattle waiting to be > slaughtered become frantic as they watch the animal > before them in the > killing-line being prodded, beaten, electrocuted > and knifed are not > justified so far as animals which are used to > produced the Plaintiffs' food > are concerned. > > It was not shown that cattle or pigs which are used > to produced the > Plaintiffs' food are frequently still fully > conscious when they have their > throats cut. A proportion of the chickens which are > used to produce the > First and Second Plaintiffs' food are still fully > conscious when they have > their throats cut. This is a cruel practice for > which the Plaintiffs are > culpably responsible. The proportion of such > chickens is very small, but > the number of chickens is so large that the > allegation that animals are > frequently still fully conscious when they have > their throats cut is justified. > > Although not all the particular charges are > justified, in my overall > JUDGEMENT those that are justified, relating to the > restriction of > movement of battery hens, broiler chickens and > chickens who have their > throats cut while still fully conscious are > sufficient to justify the general > charge that the First and Second Plaintiffs are > culpably responsible for > cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of > some of the animals which > are used to produce their food. > > There are other cruel practices affecting chickens > which are used to > provide the Plaintiffs' food; calcium deficit > resulting in osteopaenia in > battery hens, the restriction of broiler breeders' > feed with the result that > they go hungry although bred for appetite, leg > problems in broilers bred > for weight, rough handling of broilers taken for > slaughter and pre-stun > electric shocks suffered by broilers on the way to > slaughter. Those > matters, for which the Second Plaintiff or both > Plaintiffs are in my > JUDGEMENT culpably responsible, go to strengthen my > view that the > sting of this part of the leaflet to the effect > that the First and Second > Plaintiffs are culpably responsible for cruel > practices in the rearing and > slaughter of some of the animals which are used to > produce their food is > justified, true in substance and in fact. **************************************************************************** Dept. of Psychology Washington Singer Labs Room No: 016 University of Exeter Perry Road Exeter EX4 4QG, UK FAX +44 1392 264623 **************************************************************************** From: IN%"Saguaros@aol.com" 24-JUN-1997 15:43:56.64 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"Saguaros@aol.com" Subj: summer programs ????Are there any summer programs for high school students who are interested in the field of the study of animal behavior? I am a junior in high-school and would love to have some hands on experience so I know if I want to persue this field of study. I would greatly appreciate any information available. THANX!!! From: IN%"D.B.MORTON@BHAM.ac.uk" 25-JUN-1997 06:36:24.23 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Anxiety in wild mammals Dear All, I can't think why (!) but,in the UK at the present time, there is an active interest in the recognition and assessment of fear and anxiety in WILD mammals. We may be talking about the 'inedible' as Bernard Shaw put it, but I would be interested in learning about any mammal that is hunted/chased with hounds or humans (but not stalking unless thought relevant). Apart from foxes that might include deer, wild pig, otter, badger, rac(c)oons, even primates. Thanks in advance for any info. David Prof.David.B.Morton | Biomedical Science and Ethics |Internet: d.b.morton@bham.ac.uk The Medical School | University of Birmingham | Birmingham | Tel: +44 - (0)121 414 3616 B15 2TT, UK Fax: +44 - (0)121 414 6979 From: IN%"SBXNG@sbn3.phes.nottingham.ac.uk" "Nigel Goodwin" 25-JUN-1997 09:26:23.10 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Anxiety in wild mammals > I can't think why (!) but,in the UK at the present time, there is an > active interest in the recognition and assessment of fear and anxiety in > WILD mammals. We may be talking about the 'inedible' as Bernard Shaw > put it, but I would be interested in learning about any mammal that is > hunted/chased with hounds or humans (but not stalking unless thought > relevant). Apart from foxes that might include deer, wild pig, otter, > badger, rac(c)oons, even primates. Patrick Bateson's report on deer hunting with hounds, entitled "The behavioural and physiological effects of culling red deer" came out in April. Originally commissioned by and available from the National Trust, it is also now in stock at the British Library (for those who can get inter-library loans). The report was reviewed in the New Scientist sometime in April/May in an article called "Deer succumb to the stress of the chase". Basically, the physiological indicators (cortisol, muscle damage and others) showed that deer were completely exhausted after a chase, and probably suffering much more than was originally thought. The report led to the banning of deer-hunting with hounds on all National Trust property. From: IN%"Lu.Do@home.diva.nl" 26-JUN-1997 15:25:57.63 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: JOB OPENING - Washington DC area Position offered: Product Specialist Location: Sterling, Virginia Job number: V-9705/S Noldus Information Technology develops and markets high-quality software and instrumentation for the collection, analysis, management and presentation of behavioral, physiological and acoustical data. Besides standard products such as The Observer, EthoVision, Signal/RTS and UltraVox we offer custom software development, training and consulting services. Our systems are used in research institutes and industrial laboratories in over 65 countries. The company currently employs 30 people and has offices in Wageningen, The Netherlands, and Sterling, Virginia, some 30 miles west of Washington, D.C. JOB DESCRIPTION Our Sterling office has an immediate opening for a Product Specialist who will serve as the technical intermediary between Noldus products and its (new) users. You will be responsible for a range of activities which help prospects understand how our products can fulfill their research needs. Your job will include the following tasks, in order of priority: - Provide high-quality sales services for customers by supplying information and presenting the full range of Noldus products and services, - Support Noldus sales efforts through product demonstrations at trade shows and scientific conferences or at customers' locations, and - Support our direct marketing efforts to promote new products and upgrades. REQUIREMENTS Skills / Abilities: - Service-oriented personality - Strong verbal and written communication skills - Excellent organizational and interpersonal skills - Initiative, enthusiasm, high-energy and positive attitude - PC hardware and operating systems knowledge - Problem solving ability - Must be willing to travel Education: - College degree or equivalent - Affinity with the areas in which our products are used HOW TO RESPOND If you are interested in this job, please mail a resume and cover letter to Noldus Information Technology Inc., Attn: Human Resources, 6 Pidgeon Hill Drive, Suite 180, Sterling, VA 20165, U.S.A. You can also send your resume and cover letter in ASCII text form via email to info@noldus.com. When responding, please refer to the job number. For any further information, feel free to call Bart van Roekel at 1-800-355-9541. More information about our products can be found on our web site http://www.noldus.com. From: IN%"S.Champion@agsci.utas.edu.au" 26-JUN-1997 20:23:06.82 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Grazing Experimentation Dear list members, I'm new to the list and to the area of animal behaviour. My backgorund is in grazing nutrition and animal production in ruminants but I'm currently conducting an experiment looking at the nutrition and growth of young ostriches in an extensively grazed environment. As part of this study I wish to undertake some work which looks at grazing behaviour, grazing time and movement of the birds through the grazing area. They are currently in groups of 15 in paddocks of 2.5ha. I'm looking for advice/references/techniques they may help me design an experiment to look at some of these issues. I had planned to conduct the same work in each season to examine the interaction between changes in the pasture and season, with grazing behaviour. I'd look forward to hearing from anyone who may be able to assist with their advice and comments. I hope to hear from some of you soon. Regards Scott Scott Champion Associate Lecturer in Animal Production Department of Agricultural Science and Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research (TIAR) University of Tasmania GPO Box 252-54 Hobart Tasmania 7001 Australia Ph: (03) 62262618 (International +61 3 62262618) Fax: (03) 62262642 E-mail: S.Champion@utas.edu.au http://www.utas.edu.au/docs/agsci/agscience.html http://tiar.isw.net.au/ From: IN%"jcha@u.washington.edu" "James Ha" 27-JUN-1997 04:27:36.38 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Automatic reply from J.C. Ha I'm currently attending the annual Animal Behavior Society meeting in Maryland. This is an automatic reply to your mail... I have received your mail, and will be checking email from the conference. However, most responses will await my return to the office on 30 June. Cheers, Jim Ha From: IN%"pbume@wild.unizh.ch" "Pia Baumann" 27-JUN-1997 07:55:16.65 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: e-mail H. Kruuk Hi All! is there anybody out there knowing the e-mail address of Hans Kruuk, the author of 'Wild otters', 'The social badger' and 'The spotted hyena'? 1995 he was at the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology in Banchory, Scotland, but I don't know if he's still there. I hope to get a positive answer from somewhere. Thanks a lot for your attention and help! Best wishes, Pia Baumann From: IN%"reedd@cjnetworks.com" 27-JUN-1997 09:29:58.90 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology" CC: Subj: Work To any that can help- My name is Maren Davis I am 17 and interested in becoming a field scientist in behavioral studies. I would like to work with any and all animals, exotic or no I have another year of high school, but the minute it is out I am interested in a job or some kind of internship that I could do while going to college, or before, giving me experience pratical for my career choice or something that could help me get contacts to find jobs conserning the animal handeling and behavior fields to help me through college and possibly beyond. I am mainly looking for experience and maybe a contact or two. Thanks in anticipation MAREN DAVIS(e-mail address REED) From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 27-JUN-1997 12:36:11.92 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Danger! tibs! I saw a interesting biography of Alexander Graham Bell on tv a few nights ago. More interesting than the program though, was something the anchorman said when it was finished. I don't even know for sure if it is true, but apparently the word "hello" was invented in the last century by Thomas Edison, as something to say when answering the telephone. Bell himself favoured the word "ahoy" for this purpose. If Edison can go making up words for such trivial applications then so can I. Take a complex multimodal phenomenon like human communication. Suppose you eliminate all sources of ambiguity like tone of voice, facial expression, annoying mannerisms etc. and encode the pure meaning as written language. You might think that you could pipe this stuff over the net without too much worry that people wouldn't understand what you intended to say. But no. It doesn't work like that at all. The physical universe (or humans who try to interpret how it works) seems to love balance. Ying and Yang, good and evil, love and hate are all traditional antithetical concepts. Matter and antimatter, electron, positron..... you get my drift? Be warned. Every email message contains invisible quanta of misinformation (even this one I expect). If the smallest indivisible meaningful quantum of information is a bit, then I propose that its antiparticle should be called a "tib". Tibs are the fundamental units of misinformation. They ride parasitically and undetectably in between bits. While they cannot be directly observed on our primitive computer screens their existence can be inferred indirectly by the way they interfere with the brain's uptake of normal information. So why isn't all email misunderstood equally? The answer isn't immediately clear but I make the following conjecture. Some people (I am probably one) tend to generate heavily tib-contaminated bitstreams which are susceptible to misinterpretation due to the mutually destructive interactions of tibs and bits. This is probably a result of having such disorderly mental processes that the ghosts in the machine choose to flee in the form of anti-information, like rats leaving a sinking ship. It is also probable that some people are particularly prone to the disruptive effect of even quite low tib densities within a volume of information. Such sensitive people form ideal hosts in which small numbers of tibs can multiply to further increase uncertainty. Thus to some individuals even relatively unambiguous messages can develop a range of parallel meanings. The parasitic nature of tibs is such, unfortunately that the most tib-infested of these parameanings is the one least likely to be rejected by the brain's info-immune functions and is therefore the one most likely to be believed. Just the usual crap...... Jon ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Watts (___) ) ) University of Saskatchewan |o o|___________/ ( Dept of Herd Medicine O \#/ | ) and Theriogenology |bser| | Statistical | ( Western College of Vet. Med. |vati| | analysis | ) 52 Campus Drive |ons.| \___________/| *& Saskatoon ------ || || %$#@ S7N 1B4 / \ || || ^*@*~ Canada &^%%#$@ wattsjon@duke.usask.ca "The Holy Cow" -----------------------------------------------------------------------------