From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 1-MAR-1996 08:59:06.71 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Megafarms-Minifarms - Mike Varley writes: >>>Meat and Livestock Commission data from the UK with about 850 herds or so involved of all different types have shown in the past that on the smaller farms, there is a higher level of individual animal performance in terms of reproductive characteristics and of growth. (snip) The really top producing MLC pig farms are usually less than 150 sows, weaning later rather than earlier and using only family labour.>>> This is very interesting, and again it is nice to see someone putting out some numbers rather than engaging in wild speculation :-). Can ordinary people get hold of this data? Have MLC tried to identify what are the specific factors that cause this? Does anybody know of similar data for poultry or dairy cattle? Perhaps what is equally important is the maximum capacity of different sized enterprises to promote animal welfare, rather than the current averages. I could see some advantages to larger farms. For example, they could be more selective in choosing the people who work on the farms, they could probably keep better records, afford more veterinary services, and be more able to afford to pay for improvements etc. I suspect they may also be more sensitive to public opinion (??) Whether they actually do these things now is a different question. >>> wonder if Paul Hemsworth's earlier work on aversion/fear responses between farms would shed any light on this? The farms he used in The Netherlands were presumably of different types???>>> The earlier study he did in the Netherlands I believe looked at quite similar sized farms (Livestock Prod Sci. 8:67). In a latter study in Australia, he looked at farms that differed more in terms of size (AABS 23:301). From what I can see from his results, he found similar sized correlations between the animals fear of people and various measures of reproduction. This suggests that the stockmanship may well be considerably more important than the size of the farm. I dont know how much the farms differed in type of housing used etc. so it is hard to deduce from this whether stockmanship is more important than housing type. Maybe Paul could fill us in if he is listening. Jeff Rushen rushenj@em.agr.ca Dr Mike Varley Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition The University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT; tel 01132 333062, Fax 01132 333072 Mobile 0864 102531; apn6mav@leeds.ac.uk Visit with us at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/apn/apn.html <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< From: IN%"arowan@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU" 1-MAR-1996 09:10:29.47 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Ireland I have just joined the discussion group and have a request for some help regards a student of mine. She is currently in our MS (animals and public policy program) and is probably going to go through veterinary school but she first wants to spend a year in Ireland (her name is Jennifer O'Driscoll!). She rightly assumes that if she goes to vet school first, she will probably never take the time to do such a thing. She has a BS in biology from Brown University, is very interested in farm animal welfare and animal issues, is spending all her elective time in our MS program on farm animal issues, and is very bright. She also writes beautifully. Does anybody have any suggestions of what she might be able to do in Ireland (she would prefer somewhere outside Dublin) or have any contacts to whom she could send inquiries. She will be finished here sometime in the summer. Any and all help would be much appreciated. Andrew N Rowan Director Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy School of Veterinary Medicine 200 Westboro Rd N. Grafton, MA 01536 Phone: (508) 839 7991; Fax: (508) 839 2953 Email: arowan@opal.tufts.edu Andrew N Rowan Director Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy School of Veterinary Medicine 200 Westboro Rd N. Grafton, MA 01536 Phone: (508) 839 7991; Fax: (508) 839 2953 Email: arowan@opal.tufts.edu From: IN%"esa099@ed.sac.ac.uk" 1-MAR-1996 09:29:12.62 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"esa099@ed.sac.ac.uk" Subj: Re. Mike Varley >Meat and Livestock Commission data from the UK with about 850 herds or >so involved of all different types have shown in the past that on >the smaller farms, there is a higher level of individual animal >performance in terms of reproductive characteristics and of growth. >This of course is only one individual measure used to indicate >welfare which has been used by others as an index). [snip] Is this AT ALL a measure of welfare? Isn't this the context in which battery cages for hens and gestation tether stalls for sows has been justified: "She can't be that unhappy, she's still laying eggs" or "That sow has been tethered during 6 dry-periods now, and each time she'd had more than 13 healthy piglets per litter, so she can't be that troubled by it". In my mind, good growth and reproduction records cannot be used to indicate good welfare, as animals will reproduce under the most abysmal of conditions. I do acknowledge, that Mike says that this is only ONE individual measure used, but, unfortunately, this often is THE only measure used. Best wishes Birte Nielsen Genetic and Behavioural Sciences Dept. Bush Estate, Penicuik EH26 0QE From: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca" 1-MAR-1996 09:34:19.14 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Megafarms: People build them, people run them! > Sorry for jumping back in so soon, but I felt I would respond immediately > to dr Signoret's message. I didn't see this message. Was it sent to the network? If not, everyone should know that the system is set up to send replies to the person who posted the message and NOT the network. If you want your reply sent to the entire network you must make a conscious effort to do so. > My point is that variation between farms that appear similar does not prove > that it is the human factor that is the important difference. If the human > factor has not been estimated directly with quantitative variables and been > found to account for the larger portion of the variation in the studies, I > still feel you are beyond science in stating that the human is THE MOST > important factor. I contend that it is beyond science to argue or proclaim that the size of the operation is THE MOST important factor. If I am wrong to contend that the caretaker is the most important factor, then certainly anyone who argues that size of the operation is the most important factor is also wrong. > I could think of a series of variables that may account for variations > between farms utilising the same system. Type of feed, feeding equipment, > feeding routines, types and capacity and noise of fans, climatic variations > (wind, temperature, etc) in- and outside the buildings, type of and amount > of straw, etc, etc. This is all true. What is also true is that many factors which we agree would impact upon the animals are ULTIMATELY controlled by the caretaker. Who decides the stocking density of the pen? Who determines the frequency of cleaning the pen, barn, and manure pit? Who looks after the health and nutrition? Who decides the type, amount and frequency of bedding? etc, etc. Once again, like so many of our discussions, this becomes one of semantics. I think the point I was trying to make is that the size of the farm is not the major determining factor on the animal's welfare. People control most of the variables. The attitude of the farmer controls his/her behaviour toward the pigs and his/her attitude influences management decisions. Joe ============================================= Joseph M. Stookey Department of Herd Medicine and Theriogenology Western College of Veterinary Medicine University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7n 0W0 Canada stookey@sask.usask.ca ============================================= From: IN%"esa099@ed.sac.ac.uk" 1-MAR-1996 10:16:08.32 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"esa099@ed.sac.ac.uk" Subj: Re. Mike Varley >Meat and Livestock Commission data from the UK with about 850 herds or >so involved of all different types have shown in the past that on >the smaller farms, there is a higher level of individual animal >performance in terms of reproductive characteristics and of growth. >This of course is only one individual measure used to indicate >welfare which has been used by others as an index). [snip] Is this AT ALL a measure of welfare? Isn't this the context in which battery cages for hens and gestation tether stalls for sows has been justified: "She can't be that unhappy, she's still laying eggs" or "That sow has been tethered during 6 dry-periods now, and each time she'd had more than 13 healthy piglets per litter, so she can't be that troubled by it". In my mind, good growth and reproduction records cannot be used to indicate good welfare, as animals will reproduce under the most abysmal of conditions. I do acknowledge, that Mike says that this is only ONE individual measure used, but, unfortunately, this often is THE only measure used. Best wishes Birte Nielsen Genetic and Behavioural Sciences Dept. Bush Estate, Penicuik EH26 0QE From: IN%"j.mcglone@ttacs.ttu.edu" "John McGlone" 1-MAR-1996 10:54:16.33 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Mega farms and Human factors I continue to be surprised about people speculating about things they have not experienced -- like mega Farms. I think most of the modern-day Mega Farms are in the USA. I do understand there are relatively large units (particularly poultry) in Europe and Australia, but there is a big difference between a farm with 2,000 sows and a farm with 100,000 sows. In some circles, we call farms of less than 1,000 sows "small" and farms with over 100,000 "large". The large or Mega Farms are typically (but I cna not say in all cases) very concerned about animal welfare. They include welfare principles in their training and re-training. They have people in to evaluate production methods for suitability, including in terms of animal welfare. You must understand that these farms are vulnerable to public relations attacks and they don't want any negative image. Plus, at least at the top of the companies, they mean well. In my experience, the "average" welfare is best on Mega Farms compared with any other average class of farms. The bigger the farm the more careful they tend to be (again, there could be exceptions). Per Jensen made a comment that non-human factors are more important than human factors. Perhaps he should consider that it is the humans that work the equipment as well. If the people do not adjsut the ventilation, the feeding system, the watering system, the waste system properly it can have dire and grotesque effects on animal welfare. So, I must side strongly with Joe -- the people are the most important factors in determining adequate welfare -- people who manage animals and equipment. John McGlone Texas Tech University From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 1-MAR-1996 11:28:44.87 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Megafarms and humans Per Jensen writes: >>> variation between farms that appear similar does not prove that it is the human factor that is the important difference. If the human factor has not been estimated directly with quantitative variables and been found to account for the larger portion of the variation in the studies, (SNIP) However, if dr Signoret DID measure variables to specifically estimate human effects, his arguments would be valid.>>> Not necessarily. The surveys done by Hemsworth showing that animals fear of humans "explains" such and such a percentage of the variance in growth, reproductive success etc. are correlational studies with all the problems entailed. There is the obvious problem about inferring causation. Perhaps a farmer stuck with low producing animals gets angry and starts beating them, so they the become fearful. One of the impressive things about Hemsworths studies is that he has combined surveys with experimental tests.However showing experimentally that bad treatment can reduce reproduction still does not prove that the correlations across farms between handling and production is due to this type of causation. More subtly, correlations reflect the degree of variance in the variables within the sample. They dont so much reflect the importance or magnitude of the causal relationship. For example,even if the type of housing and stockmanship were of equal importance in affecting welfare, a survey based on a sample of farms where there was little variance in type of housing but a large variance in type of stockmanship would produce much larger correlations between welfare measures and stockmanship. This would lead to the incorrect conclusion that stockmanship had a greater effect on welfare than type of housing. The type of housing used has tended to become standardized over the last few decades so many samples of farms would contain little variance in housing type. However, there has been relatively little effort put into standardizing stockmanship. I suspect this is why Hemsworth finds such spectacular correlations between stockmanship and production measures. Jeff Rushen rushenj@em.agr.ca From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 1-MAR-1996 14:20:31.47 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Mailing lists: People build them, but God runs them! >>> If not, everyone should know that the system is set up to send replies to the person who posted the message and NOT the network.<<< I wonder. I sent this message by using the REPLY function. Who got it-just Joe or the whole network? (Actually most of the time I dont see the address of the person sending the message!!!!) From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 1-MAR-1996 14:29:49.42 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Mailing lists: People build them, but God runs them! >>> If not, everyone should know that the system is set up to send replies to the person who posted the message and NOT the network.<<< I wonder. I sent this message by using the REPLY function. Who got it-just Joe or the whole network? (Actually most of the time I dont see the address of the person sending the message!!!!) From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 1-MAR-1996 14:45:50.43 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"esa099@ed.sac.ac.uk" Subj: Re. Mike Varley -REPONSE >>>IIn my mind, good growth and reproduction records cannot be used to indicate good welfare, as animals will reproduce under the most abysmal of conditions. Birte Nielsen<< This issue has been flogged to death. In my opinion, measures of growth and reproduction (especially growth) IF BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL are as good a SINGLE measure of welfare as any other SINGLE measure of welfare. The important point is that no single measure is much good. In most data sets based on large numbers of farms, like those cited by Mike, measures of growth and reproduction are the only measures we have which give some clue as to the welfare in different housing systems. Jeff Rushen rushenj@em.agr.ca From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 1-MAR-1996 15:00:05.90 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"esa099@ed.sac.ac.uk" Subj: Re. Mike Varley -REPONSE >>>IIn my mind, good growth and reproduction records cannot be used to indicate good welfare, as animals will reproduce under the most abysmal of conditions. Birte Nielsen<< This issue has been flogged to death. In my opinion, measures of growth and reproduction (especially growth) IF BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL are as good a SINGLE measure of welfare as any other SINGLE measure of welfare. The important point is that no single measure is much good. In most data sets based on large numbers of farms, like those cited by Mike, measures of growth and reproduction are the only measures we have which give some clue as to the welfare in different housing systems. Jeff Rushen rushenj@em.agr.ca From: IN%"Iain.Christison@sask.usask.ca" "Iain Christison" 2-MAR-1996 08:36:37.78 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "appl ethol" CC: IN%"christison@admin.usask.ca" "Iain Christison" Subj: Large versus small. Although I agree that single measures of welfare are unreliable, one measure that is directly relevant and which might be quantified is the number of prosecutions for animal abuse. The criteria that lead to prosecution will vary from region to region. My anecdotal and unquantified observation is that in Saskatchewan it is almost invariably small (ignorant) producers who let conditions dederiorate so badly as to warrant prosecution. Can anyone substantiate this from other jurisductions? Iain Christison Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan Christison @ admin. USask. ca. From: IN%"PPHA9648@URIACC.URI.EDU" 3-MAR-1996 10:18:50.29 To: IN%"conslink%sivm.bitnet@URIACC.URI.EDU", IN%"ecolog-l%umdd.bitnet@URIACC.URI.EDU", IN%"consbio%uwavm.bitnet@URIACC.URI.EDU", IN%"envst-l%brownvm.bitnet@URIACC.URI.EDU", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"ethology%searn.bitnet@URIACC.URI.EDU", I CC: Subj: Destruction of the Endangered Species Act Hello, my name is Paula Phaneuf. I am a junior, zoology major, at the Un iversity of Rhode Island. I am one of a group of students here who are extreme ly interested in the rights of endangered species. At this time, bills are bei ng discussed in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate which would greatl y comprimise the rights of all endangered species and in addition, specifically target sea turtle populations. In the House, there is a bill which was proposed by Congressmen Young and Pombo. This is entitled "Endangered Species Colnservation and Management Act of 1995" (H.R. 2275). This bill proposes that the U.S. should lower its conser vation efforts in order to match the efforts in other countries rather than enc ouraging these countries to raise their efforts to match ours. It also allows humans to harm or kill threatened or endangered species as long as it is not do ne on purpose and is done during legal activities such as commercial fishing. In the U.S. Senate, a similar bill has been proposed by Senator Kempthorn e. This bill is entitled the "Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1995" (S. 1364). This bill requires that only minimal protection should be afforded to endangered species when conservation efforts conflict with human use of the hab itat. This bill would also require the federal government to compensate proper ty owners for any damage caused due to the conservation efforts. For example, taxpayers would be forced to pay shrimpers money for the amount of shrimp that they estimate they lost due to the presence of turtle excluder devices in their shrimp trawls. In order to prevent these bills from passing, we are trying to initiate a massive letter writing campaign. We urge each and every person to write to hi s/ her representative and senator. Simply explain that you are oppossed to any weakening of the Endangered Species Act, and specifically that you oppose thes e two bills. You can write to them at the following address: The Honorable _____________ United States House of Representatives (United States Senate) Washington, D.C. 20510 Also we encourage you to e-mail the President and the Vice President. We feel that it is important to voice your discontent to all relevant branches of government. Their e-mail addresses are: President Clinton: president@whitehouse.gov Vice Presiden Gore: vice.president@whitehouse.gov Phone calls can also have a great impact. Two numbers which could be hel pful are: White House Comment Line: #202-456-1111 U.S. Capitol Switchboard: #202-224-3121 We ask that you take immediate action on this issue and pass this informa tion on to as many people as possible. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me via private e-mail. -Thank You Paula Phaneuf PPHA9648@URIACC.URI.EDU From: IN%"fc@ntforsk.no" "Frank Christiansen" 4-MAR-1996 07:07:57.03 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca'" CC: Subj: Domestic animals' reaction to noise Dear all, I have been requested to write on the subject of domestic animals = (sheep) and their reactions to noise in pasture. Noise in this respect = comes from military activity in the field, from socalled excercise = areas. Do anyone have recomendations to litterature (books, articles) on this = subject? From: IN%"haussman@rs4703.ansc1.uni-hohenheim.de" 4-MAR-1996 08:41:53.97 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: small and big farms Congratulations to Per Jensen! Oviously it is always necessary to distinguish between messages which - contribute information - ask for information - express hypotheses - express subjektive feelings and - make propaganda for something. ___________________ ,--¬_ Hans Haussmann ,;;,_ ____/ /|/ Department for Animal Husbandry and Animal Breeding ;; ( )___, ) ´ University of Hohenheim, Germany ,' // V\__ E-Mail: haussman@hh.as.uni-hohenheim.de _ / \ / \ Fax: 0711-459-3290 ¬ ¬ ' Phone: 0711-459-2476 (-3006) ___________________ Mail: Universitaet Hohenheim, 470/HG, D70593 Stuttgart From: IN%"William_R_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu" 4-MAR-1996 08:57:43.75 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Nature-Nurture and Farm Size In the recent discsussion about production scale and animal welfare, I was struck by some interesting parallels and contradictions between this topic and the nature-nurture dilemma. Attempts to place an individual's nature (genotype) or nurture (all environmental influences on the individual's development) as being the most important component in defining the essence or even specific traits of the individual have of course not proven to be fruitful - for it is not possible for an individual to even exist without each. Thus, in this sense they are equally important. For an individual, the genotype sets the upper limit of its potential - an animal can never run faster, grow faster, or experience greater "welfare" than it is genetically capable of attaining. However, in animal breeding it is usually taught that it is the _environment_ that in fact is the restricting factor in an animal actually attaining its full potential - for in fact the ideal or perfect environment (in utero, nutrition, weather, learning, or whatever) for the individual's development is not possible to attain. Thus, when I was taught the "art of animal husbandry" as an undergraduate, major emphasis - in fact I would say greater emphasis - was placed on the importance of the stockman's role in animal care compared to the importance of improving the genetic potential of the animals's (especially for lowly heritable traits). Interestingly, in the current discussion about welfare, Per Jensen is arguing that the "environment" for the confined animal sets the upper limit of welfare - that a hen in a cage can never exceed the limits of the cage in attaining her genetic potential to experience "welfare." This argument would appear to be supportable - but there may of course be considerable variation in cage size, group size, cage design, etc. As the size of the production unit goes from small to large (or mega-units) there may be some tendency for factors such as crowding, etc. to change - which is interesting but I will not address. But it seems to me that for a "scientific" comparison of the influence of farm size vs stockmanship on animal welfare, one must in fact standardize the housing system. In other words, given that one has to choose between being a sow in a gestation stall in a 100 sow unit or a sow in the same type stall in 10,000 (plus) sow unit, in which would one more likely experience better welfare. I believe that the answer to this question would vary (at least for me) on the species-production type and also on how "I" viewed what these units would entail depending on the size of the operation. If I had to choose to be an individual animal placed at random in a production-animal unit in one of the developed countries, I believe that I would prefer smaller for dairy and large for swine, beef, sheep and veal - based on my knowledge of and experience with the units that I have seen. I really don't have enough first-hand knowledge about poultry to determine what I would prefer but my bias would possibly be to lean toward smaller for layer units and larger for broiler units. Thus, given that one is comparing housing types that are standard across size of units, I agree with Joe Stookey's statement that, "There is much to grieve about on the loss of the family farm, but I am not convinced animal welfare is one of them." I beleive that this relationship also applies, in general, to the impact of larger vs smaller units on the enivornment. Ray Stricklin Department of Animal Sciences University of Maryland From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 4-MAR-1996 09:08:32.26 To: IN%"Iain.Christison@sask.usask.ca" "Iain Christison" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "appl ethol", IN%"christison@admin.usask.ca" "Iain Christison" Subj: RE: Large versus small. On Sat, 2 Mar 1996, Iain Christison wrote: > Although I agree that single measures of welfare are unreliable, one > measure that is directly relevant and which might be quantified is the > number of prosecutions for animal abuse. The criteria that lead to > prosecution will vary from region to region. My anecdotal and > unquantified observation is that in Saskatchewan it is almost invariably > small (ignorant) producers who let conditions dederiorate so badly as to > warrant prosecution. > I'm not sure that small and ignorant go together (then again I'm only about 5'6 1/2" so maybe they do). Actually I appreciate what Iain Christison is saying but disagree. Prosecutions for animal abuse only occur in a small number of instances where systems of animal production go wrong because people fail to manage them properly. These things can happen because of ignorance or something on a continuum between negligence and cruelty. Small farms may feature more often but on larger farms the welfare of more animals will be affected. Also, I suspect the liklihood of prosecution may be greater for small farmers than for large if you consider who may be blowing the whistle, and why, and what they stand to gain or lose by doing so. My feeling is that the major welfare problem is with systems of production which, EVEN WHEN RUN CORRECTLY AND COMPLETELY AS THEY WERE DESIGNED TO BE, ARE INADEQUATE TO ENSURE THE HEALTH NEEDS AND BEHAVIOURAL NEEDS OF THE ANIMALS. Such systems can never be improved beyond a certain point by by changes in employee attitues, training, increased vigilance etc. The only solution is to legislate them out of existence. My point is that THE SYSTEM ITSELF IS AS IMPORTANT AS THE WAY IT IS RUN. Jon Watts University of Saskatchewan From: IN%"Paul.Koene@ETHO.VH.WAU.NL" 4-MAR-1996 09:48:37.36 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: field work on behaviour To (applied) behaviour researchers, As a teacher I am involved in studying the behaviour of chicken, cattle, zoo animals and especially brown bears (confiscated dancing bears and zoo bears). A student did a project on the vocal behaviour of scottisch highland bulls. She wants now to do some work during a practical period of half a year studying the behaviour of "really wild animals" for instance bears (brown or black), but everything is possible. Is there anybody studying bears or other little or large beings from a behavioural or wildlife management point of view that can use some help in the near future? Strange enough, she prefers Norway or maybe Sweden to stay. If you are interested I or she can give more information. Please contact: Paul Koene, PhD Assistant Professor in Ethology Animal husbandry / Section Ethology P.O. Box 338 6700 AH Wageningen The Netherlands phone 31 8370 82896 fax 31 8370 85006 E-mail paul.koene@etho.vh.wau.n From: IN%"HARRISM@sask.usask.ca" "Moira Harris" 4-MAR-1996 12:28:28.75 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"harrism@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Backyard agriculture Those who support more responsible use of animals in scientific experiments use the 3 R's to explain how use may be improved: reduce, refine and ? I can't remember the 3rd (recycle?) - but the point is that reducing the number of animals utilized signifies in itself an improvement in animal welfare, regardless of what is being done to that smaller number. On that principle, one would have to disagree with Ray Stricklin's nameless SPCA vet who observed that the worst cases of animal abuse occurred in people's tiny backyard animal operations. Yes, the welfare of these animals may be very poor, probably unintentionally on the part of the smallholder, but there aren't many of them. I have to agree with Jon Watts that the worst violations occur when animal are intentionally kept in a state of poor welfare in operations which run exactly as they are supposed to be, but which violate numerous principles like freedom of movement (even as other factors like climate control, veterinary care, are good). These operations turn out millions of animals per year, compared to the poor householder's decrepit old single cow, and handful of clapped-out chickens. Prosecutions for animal abuse, on the other hand, are so infrequent, and occur in such extreme circumstances, that to use the number of them >alone< as a measure of welfare would certainly be inadequate. - Moira Harris harrism@sask.usask.ca (Whose signature file, if she had one, would read "Stockperson" not "stockman" please) From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 4-MAR-1996 14:41:49.53 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAE journal survey As most of you are aware, the council of the ISAE has for some time been investigating the possibility of the ISAE launching its own journal, possibly in an electronic format. The matter has been debated several times on the applied-ethology email network. At the last ISAE general assembly at Exeter, a straw vote indicated a considerable degree of support for this among ISAE members. Consequently, the council began discussions with publishers in order to try to come up with a specific proposal to put to the ISAE. Within the next few weeks, we shall be conducting a poll of ISAE members to see if they are willing to accept a fee increase to cover the price of a journal. We shall be contacting each member individually, either by post or by email. The survey will provide details about the proposed journal, ask what sorts of material you wish to see published in the journal, what access you have to the Internet, and whether you would be willing to pay the increased fee. If the survey indicates a substantial level of support, the council will be making a formal proposal at a general assembly of the ISAE. Therefore, it is important that you read the information that will be sent to you and respond. Please stay tuned. Jeff Rushen ISAE Editor From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 4-MAR-1996 14:44:23.71 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: looking for Allison Taylor Does anyone know where Allison Taylor hangs out these days (electronically speaking)? Jeff Rushen rushenj@em.agr.ca From: IN%"mrenner@wcupa.edu" "Renner, Michael" 4-MAR-1996 18:35:01.80 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology List'" CC: Subj: FW: field work on behaviour I'm currently gathering baseline data on the pair of spectacled bears (Tremarctos ornatus) at the Philadelphia Zoo, prior to working out an enrichment regiment. It's probably not what she has in mind, being zoo animals rather than free, not to mention a long way from Sweden. Nevertheless, if her curiosity is piqued, feel free to have her contact me. Michael Renner West Chester University West Chester, PA, USA MRenner@Wcupa.Edu ---------- From: applied-ethology-error To: applied-ethology Subject: field work on behaviour Date: Monday, March 04, 1996 4:44PM To (applied) behaviour researchers, As a teacher I am involved in studying the behaviour of chicken, cattle, zoo animals and especially brown bears (confiscated dancing bears and zoo bears). A student did a project on the vocal behaviour of scottisch highland bulls. She wants now to do some work during a practical period of half a year studying the behaviour of "really wild animals" for instance bears (brown or black), but everything is possible. Is there anybody studying bears or other little or large beings from a behavioural or wildlife management point of view that can use some help in the near future? Strange enough, she prefers Norway or maybe Sweden to stay. If you are interested I or she can give more information. Please contact: Paul Koene, PhD Assistant Professor in Ethology Animal husbandry / Section Ethology P.O. Box 338 6700 AH Wageningen The Netherlands phone 31 8370 82896 fax 31 8370 85006 E-mail paul.koene@etho.vh.wau.n From: IN%"Crichton@au.sac.ac.uk" "Crichton SAC" 5-MAR-1996 03:03:50.76 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Re. heifers in cubicle houses Dear Ute, I am not convinced that early rearing on slatted floors cause the problem of cubicle rejection when heifers are introduced to the cubicle house. The timing of first introduction to this type of environment would be the crucial factor. If heifers are introduced as early as possible to cubicles (5-6 months) , even for a short time, there are fewer cubicle rejection problems later on. This is preumably due to the smaller body size in relation to the cubicle unit-i.e animals will find it easier to lie without interference from rails etc and will not be able to "wedge" themselves against the front of the cubicle. If the heifers are introduced later in life when they are considerably larger, the likelyhood of damaging limbs and getting wedged is increased, such incidents would create an aversion to using cubicles in these heifers. In addition cows prefer to lie adjacent to individuals of similar rank and cubicles which have previously been occupied by dominant individuals are rejected (Friend & Pollan , 1974). These factors mean that even with a 1:1 cow/cubicle ratio there will be inefficent use of lying area. Hope this helps Rob Berry ************** Rob Berry Midpark House SAC Crichton Royal Farm Bankend road Dumfries DG1 4SZ TEL: 01387 263 961 ******************** From: IN%"chewson@ovcnet.uoguelph.ca" "Caroline Hewson" 5-MAR-1996 10:15:28.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: sperm competition Forwarded to: ext[applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca] cc: Comments by: Caroline Hewson@PopMed@OVC -------------------------- [Original Message] ------------------------- -------------------------- [Original Message] - Dear all, On February 29, abstracts concerning sperm competition in humans were supplied to this list. I found the material deeply disturbing. Sanitised terms like "human female" instead of woman, and "extra-pair copulation" instead of intercourse with someone to whom no personal commitment is made, deny the dignity of all the persons involved. The information presented was subtly demeaning because, no matter how willing the subjects may have been to provide information and no matter how desirous of knowledge the researchers, the work ignores the reality that sexual behaviour has consequences that are not merely biological. I found no enlightenment in these abstracts. Sincerely, Caroline Hewson Dept of Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph. From: IN%"chewson@ovcnet.uoguelph.ca" "Caroline Hewson" 5-MAR-1996 11:36:58.29 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: brief clarification Dear all, On re-reading my earlier message (re abstracts on human sperm competition), I find that I haven't made clear what I feel. I ask you to allow me to explain again. I am struck that both the provision and the analysis of such data must require: (i) a devaluation of the inherent dignity of all the persons involved (ii) a denial or ignorance of the reality that our sexual behaviour has profound personal consequences in both the short and long- term. I remain convinced that to reduce our sexual behaviour to its biology is misleading not enlightening. For all these reasons, I found the material conveyed in the abstracts to be repugnant and disturbing. Sincerely, Caroline Hewson From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 5-MAR-1996 12:15:40.13 To: IN%"chewson@ovcnet.uoguelph.ca" "Caroline Hewson" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: sperm competition As I am the person who posted some abstracts about sperm competition in humans, I thought I should make a general response to Caroline Hewson's postings. Firstly, I agree that the material in question is indeed disturbing in some respects. If my posting of these abstracts has given offence to Caroline Hewson, or to anyone else, then I am very sorry because it is not what I had intended or expected. I think that Mark Bellis and Robin Baker have been very courageous and original in the way they have investigated an important, but delicate, topic. The "sanitised" use of language in these papers, I believe, reflects an effort maintain a value-neutral biological stance in a field where almost anything you report is about as likely to be taken up as a false banner or slogan by one person or group as it is to be decried and condemned as an outrage to human dignity by another. I think it is fairly obvious that we have in this work some behavioural research which is relevant to contemporary human problems. The authors have taken some of the language of behavioural ecology and sociobiology and a resourceful strategy for data collection and built a worthwhile piece of human ethology. This work was about collecting and presenting data on human sexual behaviour. Its purpose was not to undermine or deny the wider consequences of sexual behaviour in human relationships and society. Neither do the authors apparently feel it necessary to labour the obvious point that such consequences do exist and are important. An important aspect of work like this is that from a biological standpoint it can be used to illuminate precisely those concerns which Caroline Hewson feels it ignores. The data are there, you can interpret them any way you like and for any purpose for which they are relevant. I would have sent the information exclusively to Ted Friend who originated the request but this is intended to be a discussion list after all, not just a medium for exchanging references. I felt that the information might have been of interest to other Applied-Ethology subscribers. Judging from the prolonged and noisy burst of spontaneous indifference my posting elicited, it seems I was mistaken. Jon Watts On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Caroline Hewson wrote: > Forwarded to: ext[applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca] > cc: > Comments by: Caroline Hewson@PopMed@OVC > > -------------------------- [Original Message] ------------------------- > -------------------------- [Original Message] - > > Dear all, > > On February 29, abstracts concerning sperm competition in humans were > supplied to this list. > > I found the material deeply disturbing. > > Sanitised terms like "human female" instead of woman, and "extra-pair > copulation" instead of intercourse with someone to whom no personal > commitment is made, deny the dignity of all the persons involved. The > information presented was subtly demeaning because, no matter how willing the > subjects may have been to provide information and no matter how desirous of > knowledge the researchers, the work ignores the reality that sexual behaviour > has consequences that are not merely biological. I found no enlightenment in > these abstracts. > > Sincerely, > > > Caroline Hewson > > Dept of Animal and Poultry Science > University of Guelph. > From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 5-MAR-1996 12:26:43.79 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fred not Ted Oops! I made a slip of the keys. It was Fred Toates, not Ted Friend, who originated the request about human sperm competition. Jon Watts From: IN%"ACROOK@upei.ca" "Dr. Alice Crook" 5-MAR-1996 15:15:04.67 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: World Animal Care Foundation Hello all - A colleague has asked me about this organization, with which I am not familiar. Does anyone know anything about the philosophy, etc. of the World Animal Care Foundation, based in Florida, president Thomas Lane (DVM)? Thanks in advance. Alice Crook Alice Crook, DVM Coordinator, Animal Welfare Unit Atlantic Veterinary College University of Prince Edward Island 550 University Ave. Charlottetown, PEI C1A 4P3 902-628-4360 *** (FAX)902-566-0958 From: IN%"donlay@iastate.edu" "Lay, Don" 5-MAR-1996 15:18:23.05 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" "'APPLIED ETHOL.'" CC: Subj: RE: sperm competition In response to Jon Watt's question as to the appropriatness of his posting, I strongly support and encourage such postings. The manuscripts he referred to are excellent scientific papers. And, we are here to discuss science. I had read the papers before he had posted the abstracts. I found them interesting because they presented real biological data about humans that was not clouded by a perception that because we can "think", "reason", etc. , then certianly OUR behavior is not controlled in the same manners as OTHER animals. I beleive that it is ignorant to think that we are in consicous control of all of our behavior while the OTHER animals have all of their behavior controlled by hormones and neurotransmitters. And, if Caroline Hewson was disturbed by the "devaluation of the inherent dignity of all persons"; then I ask what about the inherent dignity of the OTHER animal species with which we work? I encourage others to read these works and decide for yourself. I enjoy the scientific debate on behavior, of all animals. This forum is for the discussion of scientific issues, not moral issues. Sincerely; Donald C. Lay Jr. Applied Ethology Iowa State Univ. donlay@iastate.edu From: IN%"harrism@sask.usask.ca" 5-MAR-1996 20:23:01.45 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "etho-list" CC: IN%"harrism@sask.usask.ca" "u -- harrism" Subj: Scientific v moral debate Have to disagree immediately with Donald Lay's message. We can, do, and should, discuss moral issues in the applied-ethology group. In fact, it happens every day. Every mention of farm animal welfare implies not only scientific investigation, but its logical outcome, moral decisions based on information that science has provided. Caroline Hewson's objection to the work by Baker & Bellis (she does not object to Jon Watts, I presume, for posting the abstracts) probably illustrates very well that we are indeed a widely divergent group, and what appears inoffensive and neutral to one person can easily be offensive to another. Come to think of it, we had a discussion along similar lines last year about some messages posted on Applied Ethology, didn't we? - Moira Harris harrism@sask.usask.ca From: IN%"mplonsky@worf.uwsp.edu" "Dr. M. Plonsky" 5-MAR-1996 21:17:45.46 To: IN%"chewson@ovcnet.uoguelph.ca" "Caroline Hewson" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: brief clarification On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Caroline Hewson wrote: > On re-reading my earlier message (re abstracts on human sperm > competition), I find that I haven't made clear what I feel. I ask you to > allow me to explain again. > I am struck that both the provision and the analysis of such data > must require: (i) a devaluation of the inherent dignity of all the > persons involved (ii) a denial or ignorance of the > reality that our sexual behaviour has profound > personal consequences in both the short and long- > term. > I remain convinced that to reduce our sexual behaviour to its > biology is misleading not enlightening. For all these reasons, I found the > material conveyed in the abstracts to be repugnant and disturbing. Caroline, Are you arguing that human sexual behavior should not be studied in a scientific manner? Just curious- ----- Mark Plonsky, Ph.D. 715-346-3961 wk ----- ----- Psychology Dept. 715-344-0023 hm ----- ----- University of Wisconsin mplonsky@worf.uwsp.edu ----- ----- Stevens Point, WI 54481 ----- ----- http://www.uwsp.edu/acad/psych/mphome.htm ----- From: IN%"ABECK@vm.cc.purdue.edu" "ALAN M. BECK" 6-MAR-1996 07:31:38.30 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Sperm bank The discussion of human sperm studies is reminiscent of when I worked for the New York City Department of Health. We had complaints that a man was opening a "celebrity sperm bank" where women could have the children of famous people. The project was the work of Joey Skaggs, a well-known "performance artist" famous for large-scale hoaxes. In fact, the opening press conference for the "bank" was held on April 1st! The following year Mr. Skaggs announced a "cat house for dogs" where your pet could get "safely satisfied." That hoax too was announced on April 1. Come to think of it, that day is fastly approaching again. From: IN%"di-bushong@tamu.edu" "Diana Bushong" 6-MAR-1996 08:59:24.15 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" CC: Subj: RE: sperm competition Although usually a silent participant in the discussions on this network, I feel compelled to comment on the "sperm competition" postings. I have perused at least one of the articles mentioned and believe the authors did an admirable job of reporting scientific data in a scientific manner without calling into play moral or ethical issues. In order to understand our own "human" behavior, we must investigate what it is that underlies our behavior. Surely, few scientists would question that we are each a product of our physical being and thus who we are as individuals involves both our genetic makeup and the environment in which that genetic makeup is expressed. It seems that a long time ago it was believed that human cadavers should not be dissected and investigated. Where would our knowledge and understanding of the human body be if such ideas had continued to hold sway over scientific investigation? I believe that knowledge about our physical selfs can only help us understand our entire selves. A final note that is beyond scientific discussion. I have been married to an extraordinary man for 21 years. I state this as a preface to the following statement: I personally try not to confuse our physical sexual activities with the love, friendship, companionship and intimacy I share with this man. Sex adds to and enriches our life together, but it never has been and hopefully never becomes the meaning of our relationship. Sex is a physical occurrence; love and intimacy are so much more. I personally believe that to elevate the physical act of sex to some higher moral arena gives this short-lived physical gratification a great deal more weight than it deserves. Would anyone consider elevating the act of breathing, eating or sneezing to a higher moral discussion???? All three have serious consequences for our physical selfs, yet we do not give any one of them more status than they deserve. Perhaps the reason that sex has "profound personal consequences in the short and long term" is that our culture puts far too much emphasis on the physical act of sex itself and not enough emphasis on the activity of two human beings interacting mental and emotionally. Okay I'll get off the soap-box now. -- Diana Bushong Texas A&M University Dept. of Animal Science 243 Kleberg Center MS2471 College Station, TX 77843-2471 From: IN%"serpell@pobox.upenn.edu" 6-MAR-1996 09:28:58.37 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Baker & Bellis To be fair to Caroline Hewson, I am inclined to agree that there is something faintly pornographic about Baker & Bellis's research and the way it is written up. Their book, for example, is illustrated with (as far as I can see) totally gratuitous sketches of women in sexually suggestive postures. Presumably, this was the publisher's idea, but the authors must have consented. Nor am I convinced by the scientific quality of the research; a position I share with some of the book's reviewers. Of course human sexual behavior is a valid subject for research. But there are also appropriate and inappropriate ways of presenting the findings of such research. James Serpell From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 6-MAR-1996 11:57:25.54 To: IN%"harrism@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "etho-list", IN%"harrism@sask.usask.ca" "u -- harrism" Subj: RE: Scientific v moral debate I agree with Moira that moral issues should be discussed by this group. I don't see science and morality as opposites or incompatible though. In animal welfare research we (try to) conduct studies in a rigorous scientific way, but the reasons for doing it are essentially moral and ethical considerations (our own and those of the society we live in). Sometimes I feel (perhaps I'm being cynical) that the reasons we do welfare research and try to improve conditions for animals have as much to do with our perceptions of ourselves, as being or becoming the kinds of people that we ought or would like to be, than they have to do with the animals themselves. In other words, we do it for us, not for them. Obviously, if it didn't matter to us, we wouldn't be doing it. Take that with a pinch of salt, as I say, it's a cynic's eye view. But sometimes I get this uneasy feeling that just because I believe I care about animal suffering it doesn't mean I'm not psychotically following a moral self-improvement program into which I have no insight. How do I know?! (does it even matter?) Now you're convinced I'm two chips short of a butty, I'll proceed in the time-honoured "allegorical" style. Does this scenario sound familiar? You go to a meeting or seminar where Dr A. explains his or her theories and presents his or her data at length and gives an excellent account of his or her work. At the concluding question period, Dr B. in the audience, steaming with barely suppressed fury, frames an elaborate question which everyone is aware is actually a counter-statement, in which he or she basically says that Dr A. is full of crap because he/she didn't talk about the stuff that Dr B. is more interested in. Come on admit it, we've all been there. Some of us have probably even played the part of Dr. B. I don't see anything even vaguely pornographic in the Baker and Bellis papers, though the choice of illustrations in their book is a bit peculiar. In the same way that some people decorate graphs and diagrams with little pigs or chickens, theirs have little icons representing copulating couples and naked men and women. Like James Serpell says, they seem fairly gratuitous (superfluous, I'd say), but I hardly think they are pornographic. A more serious problem with the work is in their population sampling. By their own acknowledgement the respondents to their major survey of sexual behaviour in over 3,000 women are not a random or representative sample of all women. The survey was published in "Company" magazine and reflects the reported habits of that particular magazine's readers (more accurately the <1% of them who replied). Of the university volunteers from whom they solicited donations of various fluids, many couples contributed very little material and what they did receive was heavily biassed by the contributions of one or two couples who can't have had much time left over to do anything else. I don't feel compelled to defend Baker and Bellis at all costs. However I do feel that should be commended for what they HAVE done, not condemned for what they HAVE NOT done. Jon Watts P.S. I reckon Diana Bushong has it absolutely right. From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 6-MAR-1996 14:55:08.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAE members- PLEASE READ THIS Dear all, we are undertaking a survey of all ISAE members to determine the level of support for an ISAE (electronic journal). We are contacting each member individually, by email wherever possible. It would greatly facilitate the survey, if you would take the following steps. 1. If you are in the ISAE please send me a message at the following address: rushenj@em.agr.ca 2. In the subject line, put the words "ISAE Journal survey" 3. In the message, put your name (only). This will give me a list of messages to which I can automatically reply with the questionnaire. Could you please do this before the 1st April? If for some reason you cannot, please send in your message anyway. The questionnaire will be sent out within the next few weeks. Please do this even if you have recently sent me other messages. Thanks in advance Jeff Rushen From: IN%"dmartin@cellmate.cb.uga.edu" "Deborah Martin" 6-MAR-1996 16:30:05.80 To: IN%"donlay@iastate.edu" "Lay, Don" CC: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" "'APPLIED ETHOL.'" Subj: RE: sperm competition On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Lay, Don wrote: > > In response to Jon Watt's question as to the appropriatness of his posting, > I strongly support and encourage such postings. The manuscripts he referred > to are excellent scientific papers. And, we are here to discuss science. I > had read the papers before he had posted the abstracts. I found them > interesting because they presented real biological data about humans that > was not clouded by a perception that because we can "think", "reason", etc. > , then certianly OUR behavior is not controlled in the same manners as OTHER > animals. I would just like to give support to both Don Lay and Jon Watts. I, too, feel that posting the references on sperm compition in humans was quite appropriate. I, for one, would like to thank Jon for them. I look forward to reading them. I also agree with Don. The research was done as a scientific study. It was not intended to offend women or demean sexual intercourse. I believe the studies to be both worthwhile and informative. Sincerely, Debbie Martin ******************************* * Deborah A. Martin * * Zoology Department * * University of Georgia * * Athens, GA 30602 * * dmartin@cellmate.cb.uga.edu * ******************************* From: IN%"naoabe@agr.tamagawa.ac.jp" 6-MAR-1996 23:35:02.39 To: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"naoabe@cosmos.tamagawa.ac.jp" Subj: RE: ISAE "ISAE Journal survey" >> Dear all, >> >> we are undertaking a survey of all ISAE members to determine the level >> of support for an ISAE (electronic journal). We are contacting each >> member individually, by email wherever possible. It would greatly >> facilitate the survey, if you would take the following steps. >> >> 1. If you are in the ISAE please send me a message at the following >> address: >> >> rushenj@em.agr.ca >> >> 2. In the subject line, put the words "ISAE Journal survey" >> >> 3. In the message, put your name (only). >> >> This will give me a list of messages to which I can automatically reply >> with the questionnaire. Could you please do this before the 1st April? If >> for some reason you cannot, please send in your message anyway. The >> questionnaire will be sent out within the next few weeks. Please do this >> even if you have recently sent me other messages. >> >> Thanks in advance >> >> >> Jeff Rushen >> >> =============================================================================== Dear Sir I approve of your plan. Naoshige ABE ---------------------------------------------------- Naoshige Abe Experimental Livestockfarm Faculty of Agriculture Tamagawa University Machida,Tokyo 194 JAPAN E-mail naoabe@agr.tamagawa.ac.jp Phone 0427-39-8296 Fax 0427-39-8854 ---------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"xavier@clermont.inra.fr" "BOIVIN Xavier" 7-MAR-1996 03:44:45.13 To: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAE Journal survey Xavier Boivin From: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca" 7-MAR-1996 12:42:36.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Conference announcement *** Conference Announcement *** MEASURING BEHAVIOR '96 International Workshop on Methods and Techniques in Behavioral Research 16-18 October 1996 Utrecht, The Netherlands (The information below is also available on the World Wide Web: http://www.diva.nl/noldus/mb96.html) Workshop Objectives ___________________ The last decade has seen a great deal of advancement in methods for the collection and analysis of behavioral data. Paper and pencil methods have been replaced by computer event recorders. We can now integrate observational data with physiological measurements and input from other sensors. With the advent of digital image processing and pattern recognition, will human observers become redundant? Automated systems are highly time-saving and more consistent in their operation than humans, but they can generate more data than any observer can ever register manually. How do we keep this information flow under control? What are the true benefits from these automated methods? Given that human observers and automated systems each have their advantages and drawbacks, which recording procedure is best for a given behavioral paradigm? Where are we heading for, and what can we expect in the future? Interactive Forum _________________ In order to provide an interactive forum to discuss these exciting aspects of our research field, we are organizing an international workshop around this theme. The meeting is co-organized by Utrecht University and Noldus Information Technology, manufacturer of software and instrumentation for behavioral research. Utrecht University and Noldus have a history of collaboration which illustrates that modern behavioral research cannot do without adequate technology, while software and instrumentation companies need to listen closely to the needs and wishes of their customers. An example is the Eureka project in which Utrecht University, Noldus and several European pharmaceutical companies participate. This project is aimed at the design of techniques for computer-aided recognition of behavioral patterns, in order to automate behavioral tests in the development of new drugs. The first spin-off of this project is the EthoVision system, which is quickly gaining ground as a standard instrument for behavioral research. Bridges Between Disciplines ___________________________ The diversity of behavioral research makes it a very exciting market. The development of generic software tools can form a bridge between disciplines, which are often unaware of techniques already available in other fields. Thus, we have noticed that data analysis methods stemming from ethology are now being used by applied psychologists, and that path analysis techniques originally designed by entomologists are equally useful for behavioral pharmacologists studying rodents. Along this line, we hope that Measuring Behavior '96 will serve as a common ground for crossfertilization of behavioral research disciplines. This is the first time that this workshop will be held - we hope that your response is such that it can become a periodic event! WORKSHOP PROGRAM * Innovative Methods and Applications This refers to plenary sessions in which delegates present new methods and techniques for behavioral research, or innovative applications of existing techniques. Examples of topics are experimental design, data collection (new sensors, telemetry systems, animal marking techniques, observational methods, sampling methods, etc.), data analysis (integration of different data streams, statistics, data visualization, etc.), validation of a computer program for a particular behavioral paradigm, etc. You may submit a proposal for a presentation in one of the following formats: oral paper, poster or demonstration. The presentations are grouped in three main methodological areas: - Direct Observation: manual scoring of behavior, coding of video tapes, analysis of social interactions and complex ethograms. - Automated Observation: automatic recording of movement and behavioral patterns, analysis of simple ethograms. - Behavior and Physiology: acquisition and integrated analysis of behavioral events, physiological signals and other data streams. * User Meeting These sessions aim to provide a forum in which users of Noldus products: - exchange information and experiences with fellow users, - learn about the latests product developments, - view prototypes of new products, and - discuss product development, release schedules, installation and support procedures, etc. * Technical Assistance, Training and Demonstrations Throughout the workshop, engineers and consultants will be present to provide free assistance and training in the use of software products for behavioral research. * Scientific Tours The workshop program includes two short tours of Utrecht University's new animal research facilities: - Rudolf Magnus Institute. The institute has recently moved into the newly built "Stratenum". The tour will take you to the animal housing, surgical facilities and observation rooms. There will be live demonstrations of different experimental setups. - Ethology Station. For those studying primates, this tour is a must. It takes you to the animal facilities, with indoor and outdoor enclosures, which house several large colonies of Java monkeys. Confirmed Speakers __________________ - V. Baumans (Department of Laboratory Animal Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, NL) - A.R. Cools (Department of Psychoneuropharmacology, Catholic University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, NL) - J.M. Koolhaas (Department of Animal Physiology, University of Groningen, Groningen, NL) - J. Mos (Department of CNS Pharmacology, Solvay Duphar B.V., Weesp, NL) - M. Oitzl (Department of Medical Pharmacology, University of Leiden, Leiden, NL) - F. Sams-Dodd (Pharmacological Research Department, H. Lundbeck A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark) - B.M. Spruijt (Rudolf Magnus Institute for Neurosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, NL) - F.J. van der Staay (Department of Gerontopharmacology, Troponwerke GmbH & Co., Cologne, Germany) - H. de Vries (Projectgroup Ethology and Socio-Ecology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, NL) - H.A. van de Weerd (Department of Laboratory Animal Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, NL) REGISTRATION Registration fee* Before 1 August 1996: NLG 200; (students**: NLG 50) After 1 August 1996: NLG 300; (students: NLG 75) Workshop banquet: NLG 75 City tour: NLG 40 * The fee includes lunches and refreshments during breaks. Those who cannot afford the registration fee are kindly requested to present a motivated request for a reduced fee to the Local Organizing Committee at the address below. ** Proof of student status (photocopy of valid student ID card or letter from the Head of Department) must be included with the registration form. ABSTRACTS Submission of Abstracts _______________________ Those who wish to present an oral paper, poster or demonstration should submit the title and abstract of their contribution. All submissions should be received before 1 May 1996. The Program Committee reserves the right to reject submissions which do not fit in the workshop theme or which are of insufficient quality. IMPORTANT DATES 1 May 1996: Submission of abstracts 1 July 1996: Notification of acceptance of abstracts 1 August 1996: Latest date for early registration fee 16 October 1996: Start of workshop ORGANIZATION Program Committee - Berry Spruijt, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands (chair) - Jan Mos, Solvay Duphar b.v., Weesp, The Netherlands - Lucas Noldus, Noldus Information Technology b.v., Wageningen, The Netherlands - Frank Sams-Dodd, H. Lundbeck A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark - Franz-Joseph van der Staay, Troponwerke GmbH & Co., Cologne, Germany For program booklet and registration/abstract forms: Measuring Behavior '96 Workshop Secretariat Attn: Rosan Nikkelen P.O. Box 268 6700 AG Wageningen The Netherlands Phone: +31-(0)317-497677 Fax: +31-(0)317-424496 E-mail: mb96@noldus.nl Measuring Behavior '96 has its own homepage on the WWW: http://www.diva.nl/noldus/mb96.html. The information there is continuously updated. You can also register electronically. Workshop Site _____________ Rudolf Magnus Institute for Neurosciences Utrecht University Stratenum Universiteitsweg 100 3584 CG Utrecht The Netherlands Phone: +31-(0)30-2538800 Fax: +31-(0)30-2539032 Groet, Nicole. From: IN%"hemsworthp@woody.agvic.gov.au" "Paul Hemsworth" 8-MAR-1996 00:38:36.63 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Humans and mega farms Some very interesting issues have been raised during the last week about mega farms, human factors and welfare. I would like to respond but where do I start? There's not much value in trying to identify the primary factor contributing to animal welfare: It is important to identify influential factors in the industry and address these. Obviously many factors contribute to the welfare of animals at a farm, their relative contribution to animal welfare may differ from farm to farm and there may be interactions between these factors on welfare. Our research has provided evidence of the important role of human factors on animal productivity and welfare. The literature (scientific and popular) is littered with motherhood statements concerning the important role of the stockperson. If we look at developments in the animal industries, particularly in terms of attracting and retaining stockpersons, training stockpersons, stockperson self-esteem, career opportunities for stockpersons, etc, and if we compare the amount of research that has been conducted on human factors relative to other factors, there is little evidence that the subject has been taken too seriously. In our Dutch study (Livestock Prod. Sci., 8:67) the farms were very similar in terms of size, design/housing, locality/climate, genetic pool, nutrition and management and veterinary advice, while in the Australian study (ASSAB, 23:310) the farms differed substantially particularly in terms of size, design/housing and locality/climate. Yet surprisingly the correlations, based on farm averages, between the behavioural response of breeding females to humans (let's label this "fear of humans") and reproductive performance were remarkably similar for the two studies. This indicates that in the latter study the increased variation in variables such as size (90-600 sows), design/housing (stalls v. group housing pre- and post-mating), locality/climate, genetic pool (purchased v. selected), nutrition (home mixed v. purchased), etc. did not markedly affect the reproductive variation across study farms accounted for by level of fear of humans (level of fear of humans accounted for a significant and substantial proportion of the reproductive variation between farms (about 1/4 to 1/3 of the variation or about 2 piglets/sow/year!)). In this Australian study and recent studies in the dairy and poultry industries we have specifically measured a number of human variables and found significant associations between some human variables (attitude and behaviour) with these animal variables of fear of humans and productivity. Importantly, recent research (AABS, 39: 349) in the pig industry (under commercial conditions) provides evidence of a cause-effect relationship, since improvements in the attitudes and behaviours of stockpersons (as a result of an intervention treatment designed to target attitude and behaviour) resulted in improvements in pig behaviour (increased approach to humans) and reproductive performance (about a 10% increase) relative to controls. While correlation studies do not demonstrate causal sequences, the above results show that changes in human variables result in concomitant changes in the animal variables, thus demonstrating a causal link. These results are also supported by a number of handling studies (eg. AABS, 30: 61). Similar relationships, based on farm averages, between fear and productivity have been found in the dairy (ISAE (Exeter), 1995: 175), laying hen (AABS, 33: 33) and broiler chicken (AABS, 41: 101) industries, again with generally about 1/4 to 1/3 of the variation in productivity explained in terms of fear. As in the pig studies, farms varied substantially and yet these fear-productivity relationships were very conspicuous. We are currently examining the effects of changes in stockperson attitudes and behaviours on these animal variables in the dairy and poultry industries. Our recent studies in the pig and dairy industries suggest that farm size (90 - 600 breeding sow units and 100- 300 cow units) appears to have little influence on these human variables and the behavioural response of animals to humans. Furthermore long-term observations on 70 stockpersons in a 25,000 sow unit indicate that the range in human variables and the behavioural response of sows to humans observed in this large unit is similar to that seen in smaller units. Thus we have proposed that sequential relationships exist between stockperson attitude and behaviour and animal fear, stress and productivity ( and because of the evidence that chronic stress is often associated with these high levels of humans, we consider that there are implications for animal welfare). Furthermore, we have speculated that the stockperson's attitude towards handling animals may have implications for his/her work performance (which in turn will obviously affect animal productivity and welfare). These implications of attitude on work performance may occur via effects on work ethic (reliably, thoroughness, conscientiousness etc), job satisfaction, motivation to learn new skills and knowledge, etc. For instance, it is not difficult to imagine that if the stockperson's attitude to handling the animal is poor or negative, that the stockperson's commitment to the surveillance of and the attendance to production and welfare issues is likely to deteriorate in the long term. Indeed, some of our recent observations in the pig and dairy industries provide evidence of relationships between attitude to handling animals and these job related variables (AABS, submitted). This point is similar to that one being made by Joe Stookey & others. It is the stockperson that ultimately has to make the system work. He/she is responsible for diligently monitoring animals and their conditions, promptly and diligently addressing problems (including welfare) and imposing routine husbandry procedures. Any problems in this regard will place production and welfare at risk. Paul Hemsworth PS. Just to "set the cat amongst the pigeons". The results of a preliminary study by Vivi Pedersen (which was reported at the ISAE meeting at Exeter and has been recently submitted to AABS) found evidence that positive handling of sows on tethers markedly reduced (ameliorated?) the stress response (as indicated by lower resting cortisol concentrations and increased immunological responsiveness) that was experienced by sows housed on tethers but receiving minimal or negative handling. I let others interpret! From: IN%"William_R_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu" 8-MAR-1996 08:37:51.43 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: A Little Light Etymology Dear All, There is a need for gender neutral language in our society. This is especially true for animal agriculture. When I was an undergradute in animal husbandry in the mid 1960's, I do not believe there were any females majoring in the discipline at my university. Females were routinely denied admisson to veterinary schools on the basis that they were _female_! Today, of course the majority of undergrads and vet students are female. And this change does present some challenges to our language - for words like stockman, husbandman, etc. do seem to convey an implied gender. However, the attempts to reconfigure our language to meet a gender neutral status makes for some paradoxical new words - or maybe, to be more correct, I should say it sometimes results in paradoxical new uses of some old words. For example, the word "stockperson". According to my much disheveled 4,000 page, 1942 unabridged Wesber's New International Dictionary, the word "person" traces back to the Etruscan _phersu_ meaning mask, masked individual and to the Latin _persona_ meaning a mask used by actors. The first definition or _Archaic_ form is "A character or part, as in a play; a specific kind or manifestation of individual character, in real life or fiction; an assumed character." And as example of the usage of the word taken from Bacon, "His first appearance upon the stage in his new _person_ of a sycophant or juggler." I remember my Latin and Greek etymology professor saying how she disliked the use of the word _person_ as new usage meaning to be inclusive of _female_, for to her the word _person_ carried a connotation of someone standing behind a mask pretenting to be something other than what they are. A common phrase today, "What kind of person are you?" no doubt traces back to the original use of the word. We typically do not say, What kind of human (or man, woman, individual, etc.) are you? When we say, What kind of _person_ are you?, there is an implication of someone not giving a true representation of themselves - that they are standing behind a mask. Thus, to me the word person is also biased. As a bit of digression, the word "stock" traces back to the _stump_ of a tree. Hence, something without consciousness or life (All our fathers worshiped _stocks_ and stones - Milton). Also, a person who is dull, stupid, or lifeless like a block (Let's be no stoics nor no _stocks_ Shakespeare). In old English, the word _stockperson_ would thus appear to present some possibly interesting intrepretations for the listener. In fact, I believe that the majority of English users today would have a difficult time identifying the word _stockperson_ to mean "care provider for animals." We English users are stuck with a language that in fact is very gender biased - a language that was apparently recorded in written form, and thus molded into its current form, mostly by men (unless Shakespeare turns out to have been a woman). Even the word _woman_ traces to "wife of man." When we use the pharse "men and women", we are using words that trace to an earlier time when the meaning was literally defined relative to males: "men and _the wives of men_." Language is not static. Language should serve to communicate - especially among those of us who view ourselves as striving for a objective assessment of our surroundings. But language does have other roles. For example it serves as a means of showing membership to or exclusion from a group (as parents of teenagers will recognize). Language can also be used to control and oppress - which of course is why there should be attempts to make it gender neutral. But I am not convinced that new word patterns is always the best method of attaining gender neutrality. I believe that there are times when Chairman is preferred to Chairperson. "Madam Chairman" to me is preferable to "Madam Chairperson" or even "Madam Chairwoman." I also think that "stockmanship" is preferable to "stockpersonship" and I do not think that "stockwomanship" is a word that adds to our language or to our society. The words _human_ and _man_ both trace to the Latin _homo_. I believe that there are times when the word _man_ (as in one species) is totally appropriate as a gender neutral word, expecially when it is used in the compound form. I will therefore continue to use stockman at times, and always when it is in the form of stockmanship. The ides of March draw nie. Ray Stricklin Department of Animal Sciences University of Maryland From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 8-MAR-1996 10:19:17.16 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: et tu, Ray? Ray Stricklin fails to point out that "stockperSON" is inherently discriminatory, as that invaluable volume "Politically Correct Bedtime Stories" points out. It should be replaced by the phrase "stockpersons and stockperdaughters". Jeff Rushen From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 8-MAR-1996 10:36:30.35 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Cortisol... How useful? I was wondering if anyone had a view on this: Cortisol concentration is often used as an indicator of stress but do we have any idea what, if anything, it actually indicates? Firstly it can increase in response to stress caused by changes in the physical environment eg. cold, or a painful event such as branding, or a psychological challenge like fear. So it doesn't discriminate very well which stressor is of prime importance to the animal. For example during an event like branding, the restraint, noise, visual isolation from conspecifics and proximity of people may contribute as much to the stress upon the animal as being burned with a bit of hot iron. Also, cortisol can increase in response to (presumably) pleasant or exciting events such as feeding, as well as to unpleasant events. So it doesn't even tell us whether an event is good or bad from the animal's point of view. Unless we've already made up our mind before the experiment, in which case no amount of data will convince us otherwise (it happens). There is also the stress associated with actually getting the blood, saliva etc. If you go up to your experimental animal every 10 or 20 minutes and extract blood by jugular venepuncture (yes, really) then you have two problems. First, you probably generate increased levels by the very act of taking the samples. Secondly, even using controls you may not know how much the response to sampling interferes with the response to your experimental treatment. Also I understand that there can be difficulties in accurately measuring levels in the lab. Sometimes there can be inconsistent results even from the same blood sample. Some of these problems are also found with other stress measures, chemical or behavioural, of course, and I realise that fewer people are placing too much faith in single measures now. But can anyone who really knows a lot about this stuff give me a good reason to have confidence in cortisol as a stress indicator? Jon Watts P.S. I once had a friend who became one of Britain's first male midwives. Should his job designation have been "midhusband" or the gender neutral "midspouse" and if the latter, should all female midwives become midspouses too? From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 8-MAR-1996 12:14:11.72 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Sperm: Warning- parental guidance! This topic seems to be running out, so I will get my bit in quickly. Moira Harris defends the discussion of morals in science, but I think the issue is a little more complex than she suggests. The posting by Caroline Hewson seemed to question whether a branch of scientific enquiry should continue if the knowledge it produces clashes with our moral views. I would be interested in hearing if Moira would defend this. I dont want to make a straw man out of Caroline Hewson, but like one of the other commentators, I interpreted her remarks as suggesting that we should not try to study human sexual behaviour with the approach of biology. Sometime I ago I read a "Home Medical Encyclopedia", published in the 30's or 40's which luridly described all the diseases likely to inflict one. Prominent amongst these was "masturbation", which, I was assured, would inevitably lead to insanity. I am sure many men of that generation sincerely believed that. Since the incidence of masturbation among teenage boys has stayed relatively fixed over the last 3 million years at 99.99999999%, many of those men must have suffered either from underlying fear of going mad or from intense frustration. Biological studies of human sexual behaviour did much to free us from this sort of crap. The ludicrously exaggerated punishment of extra-pair copulations (EPC) that used to exist in our society probably caused as much, or more, human suffering as did the EPC itself, without, I suspect, changing its incidence in the slightest. Whether we are for or against EPC, I am sure all our lives will be easier if we understand why it occurs. Jeff Rushen From: IN%"IDUNCAN@APS.UoGuelph.CA" 8-MAR-1996 15:38:27.24 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Cortisol Dear All, Jon Watts asked whether or not cortisol levels gave a good indication of stress. I would suggest that cortisol levels (or whichever glucocorticoid is appropriate for the species being considered) give an excellent indication of stress. They do that BY DEFINITION. Of course glucocorticoid levels give no (or little) indication of how good or bad the animal feels and so little measure of the animal's welfare. If that is what Jon wishes to assess, then I suggest he measures something else. For a fuller discussion see :- Duncan, I.J.H., 1996. Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A, Anim. Sci. Suppl. 27: 29-35. Moberg, G.P., 1996. Suffering from stress: An approach for evaluating the welfare of an animal. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A, Anim. Sci. Suppl. 27: 46-49. Yours, Ian Duncan From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 8-MAR-1996 16:51:40.39 To: IN%"IDUNCAN@aps.uoguelph.ca" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Cortisol On Fri, 8 Mar 1996 IDUNCAN@APS.UoGuelph.CA wrote: > I would suggest that cortisol levels (or whichever glucocorticoid > is appropriate for the species being considered) give an excellent > indication of stress. They do that BY DEFINITION. > > Sorry but I'm not sure by WHAT definition cortisol indicates stress. My dictionary doesn't have any definition of stress which mentions cortisol or vice-versa. I don't want to get too hung up on definitions though for the moment. Stress, is a term capable of being defined in many ways. Similarly welfare, where Ian Duncan's definition is only one of a number in circulation. Viz. Welfare is to do with what animals FEEL. To me it's a self-evident truth, though for all that it is less useful heuristically as a basis on which to think about designing experiments to measure it than some other definitions are. I haven't read the two recent articles that he referred to, but Moberg, seems to regard stress and welfare as almost the same thing as far as I remember from some of his earlier writing. Ie welfare as an animal's risk of falling into a pre-pathological state which predisposes it to disease, reduced fertility etc. Broom, on the other hand recommends a more diversified approach in which many kinds of measures are relevant and where feelings are important, but not all-important. Which brings me back to the point I was going to make which is that however we define it formally, we know roughly what welfare is and we can recognise certain features of good and bad welfare that we can measure. I'm not the first person to say that, I just can't remember who said it before so can't acknowledge him/her. To argue that stress is that phenomenon which evokes a stress response and a stress response is that phenomenon which is indicated by an increase in cortisol is just "that old time religion" as far as I can tell. Esp. when you consider other other factors affecting cortisol levels, and the difficulties of measurement and sampling etc. as I mentioned earlier. I'm not planning to do any cortisol measurements at present, I'm just wondering about the extent to which studies that have used cortisol really measure what they set out to measure. This is quite important for evaluating the literature on stress, fear, pain etc as factors in animal welfare. Anyone have any views on that? Jon Watts From: IN%"sgadbois@is.dal.ca" "Simon Gadbois" 8-MAR-1996 20:44:53.98 To: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca", IN%"IDUNCAN@aps.uoguelph.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cortisol I can suggest the many papers by Sapolsky on social stress in wild baboons. Similar papers by Creel and Creel, Rasa, Rood, Packard, etc. on social animals such as social mongooses, african wild dogs, wolves, etc. Is there ONE good measure of stress out there??? After working with the electrodermal response/psychogalvanic reflex and other physiological measures of that sort including our present study on wolves with cortisol, I can only say that you have an "indicator" of some "stress", "tension" or "arousal", behavioral and-or physiological depending on the context (social or physical), the species and with humans (as well as social mammals) personality, temperament and probably culture... The idea is to keep good behavioral measures of the source of stress of interest and see if you can correlate what you see with what you measure. In other words, subjectivity is part of the research on stress... Cortisol seems to be amazingly popular recently and does actually have some nice advantages over other physiological measures, especially for free- ranging animals or wild animals kept in large enclosures (such as our wolves). I agree though fully, that stress is a very VAGUE concept and I do get stressed when I try to define it... Simon Gadbois Canadian Centre for Wolf Research and Department of Psychology Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada, B3H 4J1 From: IN%"dmartin@cellmate.cb.uga.edu" "Deborah Martin" 9-MAR-1996 16:27:37.70 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Animals on the auction block (fwd) This is a message I received from Primate-talk. I thought many people on this list would be interested in the following information as well. ******************************* * Deborah A. Martin * * Zoology Department * * University of Georgia * * Athens, GA 30602 * * dmartin@cellmate.cb.uga.edu * ******************************* ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 12:49:58 -0500 From: Shirley McGreal To: primate-talk@primate.wisc.edu Subject: Monkeys on the auction block (from ippl@awod.com [ Shirley McGreal ]) This post comes from another list. Exotic animal auctions are truly appalling events and a blight on our nation. I went to one in Atlanta once: the First Annual Exotic Animal Auction at Dewey Henderson's auction barn. One of my most mightmarish memories is of totally terrorized antelopes charging madly around the auction ring as bidders, probably from Texas game ranches, bid on them. There were terrified monkeys too. I still remember the faces of two bewildered owl monkeys in vari-kennels. Georgia state wildlife officials actually had a booth to facilitate issuance of permits to buyers. The sole qualification required to buy animals was the money - no experience was needed. I went to this auction with a carload of Charleston animal-lovers and we met with a group of Atlanta animal-lovers to picket this event. We got massive publicity and there never was a "Second Exotic Animal Auction" at Dewey Henderson's barn was far as I know. Department of Agriculture reports show that Florida animal dealer "Trapper John" Anderson sells primates at auction. He is the dealer allegedly trying to trap squirrel monkeys around the Bonnet House in Fort Lauderdale. An 11 October 1993 Agcirulture inspection report on "Trapper John" by Kristina Cox DVM noted, "#46, Records (2.40)(b)(1 and 2): a tamarin died, while under the licensee's control, at the June 1993 I-Cross auction. Pertinent information and circumstances are not reflected in the facility's husbandry-medical records.. #46 Records (2.75)(b)(1): the tamarin that died at the auction was not reflected ub the "Disposition records" required by 2,75. Not only sales but all animals that leave the licensee's contrsol, premises, etc. must be entered in these records. ... Clearly, an animal sold at auction may not be traceable and I should be interested in whether CDC can do anything to stop sale of primates at auction. There otta be a law! Here's the partial list of exotic animal auctions. ---------------------------------------------------- LOLLI BROTHERS Alternative Livestock Auction --- April 9-13, 1996 Lolli Brothers Livestock Market, Inc. Highway 63 South, Macon, MO 63552 Tel: (816) 385-2516 --- Ask for: Dominic, Tim, Frankie or Jim. This is a 5-day auction, and will include all types of "caged" animals and alternative livestock. Exotic animals to include, Deer, mini-horses & donkeys, zebras, Llamas, camels, elk, etc. ------------------------ LOY'S SALE BARN Exotic Animal and Bird Auction--April 6, 1996 Location: Eight-miles east of Portland, Indiana on Highway 26, and one-half mile to the north. You will find: Buffalo, Zebra, Camel, Ostrich, Emu, Elk, Rhea, Llamas, Alpaca, Deer, Miniature Horses & Donkeys, Water fowl, Poultry, and "caged" animals such as: Bears, Big Cats, Monkeys, Reptiles, etc. Tel: (219) 726-2639 ---- Ask for: Mike or Gary Loy ------------------------- L-CROSS RANCH SALE OF EXOTIC ANIMALS Animals sold on consignment ---domestic livestock auction. April 6, 1996, starts at 9:00 am, Okeechobee, Florida Admission - $20.00 per person --- no cameras or video-recording equipment. Contact: Mark or Patricia Pearce Tel: 1-800-Exotic 1 or (813) 763-0569 ----------------------- MID-OHIO EXOTIC ANIMAL AND BIRD AUCTION March 29, 1996: Caged birds, water fowl, peacocks, swans, reptiles, monkeys, cats, lions, bears, exotic sheep and goats. March 30, 1996 Mini-donkeys, alpacas, Pot-belly pigs, deer, elk, camel, ducks, geese, llamas, wallaby, emus, rheas, ostriches, buffalo, etc. P.O. Box 82, Mt. Hope, Ohio 44660 Tel: (330) 674-6188 Ask for: Monroe Schlabach Owner is: Steve Mullet Auction site: At Mt. Hope, just north of Millersburg and Bunker Hill, on State Rd. 241 @ County Rd 77. ------------------------ G & T EXOTICS --- ALTERNATIVE LIVESTOCK Two-day Sale --- March 22-23, 1996 Friday: Sheep and Goats, Caged animals and birds, Rhea, Ostrich, Emu, Llama, (on consignment: Oryx, Blesbok, Zebra, Fallow deer, Axis deer, Whitetail deer, Yak, Gemsbok, etc.) Saturday: African Hooved Stock, Elk, Deer, Buffalo Crosses, Miniature Horses and Donkeys, Buffalo, Wallabies, Kangaroos, etc. Lockwood, Missouri Tel: (417) 232-5057 or (417) 232-4089 ------------------------- BARKER-GILCHRIST FAIRFIELD EXOTIC ANIMAL AUCTION - IOWA 4-day Auction, March 28-31, 1996 Big Rams, Big Billies, Big Boars, Elk Bulls, and various types of racked buck deer, antelope, auodad, reindeer, white-tail, mule-deer, Ibex, Axis, Mouflon, Red Sheep, Tahr, buffalo, Russian - and - Wild Hogs, Pot-belly pigs. Sat- March 30 --- Large carnivores Sun - Camels, Zebras, Zeedonks, and Zonies For Auctioneers, contact Bob Barker, Keosauqua, Iowa, 319) 293-3548 or Kyle Gilchrist (515) 936-4670 ------------------------ NOAH'S ARK EXOTIC ANIMAL AUCTION, Hanceville, Alabama First and third Saturday of each month March 16, 1996 --- Auction begins at 12:00 noon Beginning on April 6, 1996--- auctions begin 10:00 am Future dates: April 20, 1996 and May 4, 1996. All types of exotic animals/cattle to include buffalo, camels, Goats, Caracals, Cougars, Emu, Lions, Tigers, Servals, Primates, Reptiles, Pot-belly pigs, Caged fowl, waterfowl, sheep, Miniature horses and donkeys, Llamas, Zebra, Wallabies, Ostrich, Auction site: 4-miles south of Cullman, off Highway 31. Eddie McAnelly ---Auctioneer For info, call Harold or Paige Pitts (205) 734-3289 or (205) 739-7123 -------------------------- J & C EXOTIC ANIMAL & BIRD SALE Two days---- March 9 and 10, 1996 March 9-- Caged animals, caged fowl, waterfowl, goats, sheep, primates, reptiles, etc. March 10 -- Miniature Horses and donkeys; camels, llamas, zebra, buffalo, ostrich, rheas, emu, Wallabys, etc. Brundidge, Alabama, Highway 93 North, 10 miles south of Troy, Alabama. Contact: Jerry or Charlotte Smith, (334) 735-3971, or write: J&C Auction, Rt 1, Box 219, Brundidge, Alabama, 36010, Fax: 334) 735-0006 Auctioneer: Jerry Johnson Future dates: April 20 & 21, 1996; May 25 & 26, 1996 -------------------------- MID-AMERICA ANIMAL AUCTION, CAPE GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI, BIG SPRING SALE [One of the biggest and sells lots of primates] Sale dates: April 26-28, 1996 Place: Flickerwood Arena, Jackson, Missouri For info, call: Neal Franke (314) 788-2261 or Todd Lantz (314) 243-8616 ---------------------------- This is surely one issue that surely nobody on ths list can disagree about! Shirley Shirley McGreal, International Primate Protection League POB 766, Summerville, SC 29484, USA Ph: 803-871-2280 Fax 803-871-7988 Home page: http://www.sims.net/organizations/ippl/ippl/ From: IN%"ar655@traverse.lib.mi.us" "CHARLIE FITTS MORRISON" 9-MAR-1996 20:33:45.54 To: IN%"dmartin@cellmate.cb.uga.edu" "Deborah Martin" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Animals on the auction block (fwd) Deborah, I definately agree! For such a high and mighty species, homo sapiens are rather barbaric, wouldn't you say? Since I've written this not I'll take the time to introduce myself. My name is Charlie, and I'm not an ethologist or anything like that; I'm 16 and just interested in ethology. I'm waving back and forth between ethology, herpetology, and veterinary medicine. They are such different, yet interesting careers. Not having a PhD (or even a high school diploma!), I probably won't have much to add to the list, but the notes that I have already read were still interesting. Au revoir! *Herpetology*Ethology*Herpetology*Ethology*Herpetology*Ethology*Herpetology* @ H A R L ! E (The bumbling buff...er bassoonist!) "We are shooting stars that speed through life, unaware of all possibilities" From: IN%"BORELL@mluitzs1.landw.uni-halle.de" "Eberhard von Borell" 11-MAR-1996 02:15:35.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: cortisol and stress Dear all, Many people still think that "stress" or certain "cortisol" levels are generally indicators for something negative or bad welfare. Stress is absolutely necessary for survival. Life without stress is death (H. Selye). Therefore, many scientists think that we should get rid of the word stress (because of the negative touch) or at least use the word in a proper context with a detailed description of the situation in which we measure something what we call stress. I would rather suggest to use the word stress for situations of increased "arousal" or "excitement" as somebody else already suggested. The interpretation whether the level of arousal is considered good or bad in terms of animal welfare depends very much on other measurements (i.e., behaviour) and the specific situation an animal is in. Meaning that cortisol per se doesn't tell you anything. Also, the absolute level doesn't tell you anything either. Only relative comparisons of cortisol levels in different situations might tell you something. Examples: We are currently measuring cortisol and other hormones (cortisol is not necessarily the best indicator for everything that we call stress) in fallow deer that are handled differently before transportation. Those deer that are handled with the presence of humans (including direct touch) while handling, release double as much cortisol and catecholamines into their bloodstream than others that are handled more gentle without direct human interference. Considering their behaviour in terms of resistance to the procedure and vocalizations, I would tend to interpret one procedure as bad or relatively worse than the other. On the other hand, measuring increasing levels of cortisol in animals during copulation would also indicate a higher level of arousal. In the context of this behaviour, I would not come to the same conclusion as in the last example. In the context of animal housing, we sometimes forget that farm animals have rather problems with the low level of stimulation in a relatively dull environment. Some level of stimulation (arousal, excitement, stress?) is appreciated for normal biological functioning and to prepare animals for situations in which they are exposed to unfamiliar stimuli (i.e. during transportation). Being always aware of the consequences a certain behaviour or physiological state produce, we should be able to come up with meaningful interpretations and avoid general judgements on phenomena (like stress) that are rather complicate and sometimes confusing. Eberhard von Borell, Ph.D. Prof. Animal Husbandry & Farm Animal Ecology Institute of Animal Breeding & Husbandry with Veterinary Clinic Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg Adam-Kuckhoff-Str. 35 D-06108 Halle, GERMANY Tel.: (49) (0) 345-5522332 Fax: (49) (0) 345-5527105 E-Mail: BORELL@mluitzs1.landw.uni-halle.de From: IN%"olej@DSR.kvl.dk" 11-MAR-1996 04:37:26.53 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Eliminative behav. in pigs Dear all I am a student at the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural High School of Denmark (KVL). I am about to do a project on urinating and defaecating behaviour in outdoor pigs. I would like to get information or links to this to this subjekt: Eliminative behaviour in domestic pigs, feral pigs and not domesticated species. Any help would be gratefully recieved. Yours sincerely Stud. agro. Ole Jensen E-mail: olej@dsr.kvl.dk P.S.: I am a novice on the net. I hope this is the proper forum to ask for such help. From: IN%"CHolm@ZI.KU.DK" "Holm, Christine {ZI-APB}" 11-MAR-1996 09:23:52.49 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology-error" CC: Subj: RE: Sperm: Warning- parental guidance! Dear Jeff Rushen, I have read your comment on morals in science, and I mostly agree with you. Moral deals with how things ought to be - science deals with how they are. If moral thinking refuses to learn from science, it will end up wishing for the impossible, which in my opinion is a waste of time. I have one question though: Don't teenage girls masturbate? Or adults of both sexes, for that matter? Best regards Christine Holm Christine Holm Dept. of Population Biology University of Copenhagen Denmark E-mail: cholm@zi.ku.dk ---------- From: applied-ethology-error To: applied-ethology Subject: Sperm: Warning- parental guidance! Date: 8. March 1996 13.10 This topic seems to be running out, so I will get my bit in quickly. Moira Harris defends the discussion of morals in science, but I think the issue is a little more complex than she suggests. The posting by Caroline Hewson seemed to question whether a branch of scientific enquiry should continue if the knowledge it produces clashes with our moral views. I would be interested in hearing if Moira would defend this. I dont want to make a straw man out of Caroline Hewson, but like one of the other commentators, I interpreted her remarks as suggesting that we should not try to study human sexual behaviour with the approach of biology. Sometime I ago I read a "Home Medical Encyclopedia", published in the 30's or 40's which luridly described all the diseases likely to inflict one. Prominent amongst these was "masturbation", which, I was assured, would inevitably lead to insanity. I am sure many men of that generation sincerely believed that. Since the incidence of masturbation among teenage boys has stayed relatively fixed over the last 3 million years at 99.99999999%, many of those men must have suffered either from underlying fear of going mad or from intense frustration. Biological studies of human sexual behaviour did much to free us from this sort of crap. The ludicrously exaggerated punishment of extra-pair copulations (EPC) that used to exist in our society probably caused as much, or more, human suffering as did the EPC itself, without, I suspect, changing its incidence in the slightest. Whether we are for or against EPC, I am sure all our lives will be easier if we understand why it occurs. Jeff Rushen From: IN%"Per.Jensen@hhyg.slu.se" 12-MAR-1996 06:06:25.76 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Stress???!!! Dear all, I know many of you are hiding in the bush, pretending not to hear or see, now that the issue of stress definitions and measurements are brought to the surface once again. I don't want to disturb you, this is probably a too large issue for a fruitful network discussion. Just for the rest of you: All would not agree with the view of Ebbie von Borell (the rather old fashioned - sorry Ebbie - "life without stress is death"-approach). For those who would like to see a different, but as I think more fruitful, approach, try to get hold of Fred Toates new book: "Stress - conceptual and biological aspects." Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1995. I have myself used much the same approach in a recent paper: Jensen, P., 1996. Stress as a motivational state. Acta Agric Scand, Suppl 27, p 50-55. And a paper by Jensen & Toates with the same basic message is in the pipeline for Applied Animal Behaviour Science. Caught your curiosity, eh? Per PS For the scandinavians out there in cyberspace, my Swedish textbook "Stress i djurvarlden" (Stress in the world of the animals) will be out from the printers in late April. DS ******************************************************************* Per Jensen Professor of Ethology __/\______________9 Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,\ o I Department of Animal Hygiene, \- I Section of Ethology \_______________I SKARA, SWEDEN /\ /\ E-mail: Per.Jensen@hhyg.slu.se / \ / \ ******************************************************************* From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 12-MAR-1996 08:06:01.10 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Stress???!!! -REPONSE I like people who, like me, aren't afraid of self-publicity! Jeff From: IN%"Jane.Geismar@hhyg.slu.se" 12-MAR-1996 08:37:13.96 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Behaviour/behavioural changes in sick animals Hello Everybody, My name is Jane Geismar and I am a Ph.D. student at the department of Animal Hygiene in Skara, Sweden. My thesis is about pigs' behaviour, performance and health in relation to rearing conditions, group size, stocking density and group composition. I am looking for references about behaviour/behavioural changes of pigs with clinically manifestated (or diagnosed) diarrhoea. Does anyone know if there are any studies made on this subject? Looking forward to your replies, Jane +#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+# # Jane Geismar Jane Geismar + + # # Inst. för Husdjurshygien Dept. of Animal Hygiene + + Box 345 P.O.B. 345 # # 532 24 SKARA S-532 24 SKARA SWEDEN + + Tel: 0511-30000 Tel: +46 511 30000 # # FAX: 0511-30204 FAX: +46 511 30204 + + Email:Jane.Geismar@hhyg.slu.se Email:Jane.Geismar@hhyg.slu.se # +#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+# From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 12-MAR-1996 09:04:49.37 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: definitions of stress (yawn) Reify: to convert mentally an abstract concept into a thing. If we want to understand problems with the definition of stress we would do better to look at the habits of the human mind than do experiments. The worst of these are - the tendency to assume that if there is a word then there must be a thing to go with it -if one word is used for two things, then the two things must be the same (In the review that he will soon receive of his paper, Per Jensen will read: "Very interesting. Why spoil it by using the word "stress?" ") Jeff Rushen From: IN%"William_R_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu" 12-MAR-1996 09:10:45.87 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Stress et al. Dear All, Below is a message that I prepared yesterday and had almost decided not to send - for in truth, I have not attempted to keep current in the "stress" literature. Per Jensen's message has prompted me to reconsider and now send the message. My apologies to Jensen and Toates (and others) who may have published in detail on some of the points I raise. I would like to propose a continuation and expansion of the discussion about stress, behavior and welfare. At the outset I acknowledge I have an axe to grind for I believe that the myth of "objective" measurement of stress (compared to the measurement of behavior - often identified as a "subjective" trait) has been a severe burden to the acceptance of behavior research by some in the scientific community. This myth that stress can be measured objectively and that behavior can only be measured subjectively has been especially damaging to the progress of research in the U.S. Regarding the subjectivity of stress, in Ebby Von Borell's message on cortisol and stress, he acknowledged that intrepretation of cortisol levels in terms of stress were dependent on whether one viewed the activities (or treatment) of the animals as "good" or "bad" - which means stress is a highly subjective phenomenon! (Cortisol can be measured objectively but intrepretation of these data relative to stress lies in an evaluation of the behavioral state of the animal - according to what Ebby wrote.) In fact if stress (as measured in units of cortisol or whatever) must be intrepreted relative to behavior, then a valid question is, "Why does current science (paper review, job descriptions, etc.) more frequently ask for measures of stress than for objectively quantified measures of behavior?" I remember giving a presentation in British Columbia some 15 years ago on the topic of "Social Stress" and being following by a speaker (I believe a veterinarian) who was so negative on the use of "stress" in science that he refered to it as "Selye's Silly Syndrome." I seem to lean more toward this sentiment each year, and now feel somewhat in a dilemma for I still consider the area of social stress to be a primary research topic of mine. However, I have very little interest in measurement of cortisol, but instead primarily attempt to follow the proposals and implications of Glen McBride's work - that distance and angle measurements among individuals within a social group are indirect but objective measures of the social relationships, organization and even "stress" among the members of a group. McBride also once proposed that the term "strain" may be more appropriate than "stress" if one is consistent with how the term is used in engineering and architecture. (A bridge experiences "strain" as a result of the "stress" exerted upon it from the automobiles it carries.) I didn't see any purpose for what McBride was proposing at the time. Now I wonder if the study of behavior would not have gained some advanage had it used the term "strain" instead of stress. I believe that it is too late to attempt to change the use of the term, but in fact I wonder if "social strain" does not more accurately indicate my research interests than does "social stress" - for it is the "forces" exerted by one individual on groupmates that interests me and not the general adaptation syndrome of physiological stress. Of course, as Ebby indicated, behavior-welfare must not be in contradiction to what is known in other scientific disciplines, especially physiology. But I think that it could be a waste of time for applied ethology to concentrate its limited resources on trying to make sense of the general phenomonen of physiological stress relative to welfare. For over 60 years with far more resources and with far more personnel, the physiologists have accomplished little in their attempts to develop a clearer model of stress than what Selye originally proposed. And ultimately - as has been pointed out numerous times by many persons - welfare is not something that can be measured physiologically. And the same is true for behavior, and especially social behavior! Ray Stricklin Department of Animal Sciences University of Maryland P.S. I don't expect to win this battle for the Poultry Behavior position job desciption here at the University of Maryland includes the statement "(expand) knowledge of the interactions of poultry behavior, stress and management..." From: IN%"HARRISM@sask.usask.ca" "Moira Harris" 12-MAR-1996 09:49:02.65 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"harrism@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Sperm and semantics (Not Science) Dear Jeff and all, I have previously been somewhat hesitant to make very lengthy postings, in case they were perceived as a time waste. However, it seems that in this instance I may have sacrificed clarity for brevity, so just this once I will expand a bit more. Jeff, you were correct that I oversimplified the issue of the discussion of science versus morals. Actually, I was responding in a simplified way - "we can and do discuss morals" to Don Lay's simplified message - "we are here to discuss science, not morals". I think it's fairly clear, even from recent postings on language usage and exotic livestock auctions, that many people think Applied-Ethology is an appropriate forum to discuss issues which are not strictly scientific, but which relate to science, to research, to animal use -- and to other areas of concern for many of us, like those of gender bias, for example. Some people may prefer to discuss science -- "value free" -- and do their best to do so. Personally, I don't believe there is such a thing. The science we do relates to ourselves, our society, beliefs, morals and understandings. I also think that it's possible to miss out on interest and enlightenment by skipping postings of dubious scientific content. Perhaps, as an experiment, we should for a 2-week period, insert (Science) or (Not Science) into the header, to see what we would miss if we only read postings of one sort or another. To answer Jeff's related question (and I would like his straw "man", Caroline, to respond himself (oops, I mean herself) on this one too) - given that science operates within our own societal construction, it is likely that results may at one time or another conflict with our own sets of values. The implications of scientific research (which are not strictly science, but are related to it) will vary according to one's moral perspective, but so too may the interpretation of the research: eg if I compare "welfare" of sows in two gestation systems, using a number of different measures, my interpretation of complex results may differ according to whether I personally think one system is unacceptable. It is interesting to examine the last couple of lines of abstracts to see situations where the conclusions appear disparate with the reported results -- a bit of moral manipulation, apparently. As for Baker and Bellis, I don't object to the premise of their research. Their abstracts seemed ok. Their book is rather dubious, with illustrations, as Jon Watts pointed out, appearing rather superfluous, and some in very poor taste, although I'm not sure 'pornographic' is the right word. I wonder how different B & B's research might have been if they had been Rachel and Marg rather than Robin and Mark? I'd also like to answer Ray Stricklin's intelligent and articulate posting about language while I'm about it. I didn't know that the word 'woman' meant 'wife of man'. However, to me that doesn't seem to detract from the appropriateness of its use as a gender-neutral term. Given that our world has been until recently (still is?) male-dominated, we do need to break away from this at some point. The derivation of the word woman in the ancient past seems less important than its current usage. I can't agree that 'man' is ever an appropriate gender-neutral term. As Ray points out, language can be used to oppress, or more subtly, to exclude, and when one defends the continued use of terms like 'man', 'fellow' etc, one propagates the exclusive status quo. Language is not static, and it can change to accommodate our needs. The use of 'stockman' for example implies that all animal caregivers are men, and by derivation, that female caregivers are aberrant, and therefore inferior. Also, Ray, if the majority of the public wouldn't understand 'stockperson', I can't see that they would have a better time with 'stockman'. Perhaps 'animal caretaker' would be a more appropriate, gender-neutral term? There are examples everywhere of p-c language gone mad. For example, today I saw an abstract which told me that on entry to an experiment, pigs had been separated by gender. I think, when referring to pigs, the word 'sex' is both acceptable and clear. 'Chairman' is an outmoded word. 'Chairwoman' is cumbersome, even without the horrendous accompanying 'Madam'. I can't see what is wrong with 'Chair', though, which is both brief and neutral. The language we use >>is<< important. Whether we write it or speak it, it subtly influences our thinking, and forms the setting for the ways in which we think and work. And believe me, we've got a long way to go before we reach true equality in the workplace. Okay chaps, load those guns and start shooting! - Moira Harris From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 12-MAR-1996 10:01:05.58 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Cortisol... How useful? -REPONSE >>>I was wondering if anyone had a view on this:>>> I don't believe you were wondering. >>>Cortisol concentration is often used as an indicator of stress but do we have any idea what, if anything, it actually indicates? >>> Yes we do. It indicates the secretion of cortisol from the adrenal cortex (confused by changes in clearance rate etc). This in turn indicates release of ACTH (confused by other things that increase cortisol release). This in turn indicates release of CRF (confused by other things that cause release of ACTH). >>>Firstly it can increase in response to stress caused by changes in the physical environment eg. cold, or a painful event such as branding, or a psychological challenge like fear. So it doesn't discriminate very well which stressor is of prime importance to the animal. For example during an event like branding, the restraint, noise, visual isolation from conspecifics and proximity of people may contribute as much to the stress upon the animal as being burned with a bit of hot iron.>>> This means that you need plan the experiment well to control for restraint, noise, visual isolation and human proximity. >>> Also, cortisol can increase in response to (presumably) pleasant or exciting events such as feeding, as well as to unpleasant events.>>> This means that you can't t compare pleasant and unpleasant events. But you may be able to compare two unpleasant events, or (possibly) two pleasant events. >>> So it doesn't even tell us whether an event is good or bad from the animal's point of view. Unless we've already made up our mind before the experiment, in which case no amount of data will convince us otherwise (it happens). >>> Agreed. You need other data to determine if the event is pleasant or unpleasant. >>>There is also the stress associated with actually getting the blood, saliva etc. If you go up to your experimental animal every 10 or 20 minutes and extract blood by jugular venepuncture (yes, really) then you have two problems. First, you probably generate increased levels by the very act of taking the samples. Secondly, even using controls you may not know how much the response to sampling interferes with the response to your experimental treatment. >>> The solution is not to go up to your experimental animal every 10 or 20 minutes and extract blood by venepuncture. There are problems that arise from the inherent complexity of the HPA axis, and problems that arise from the fact that many experiments are badly done. >>>Also I understand that there can be difficulties in accurately measuring levels in the lab. Sometimes there can be inconsistent results even from the same blood sample.>>> Yes, that is why you need inter- and intra-assay CV's. (Which, I hasten to point out, is also true, BUT NEVER DONE, for behavioural measures) >>>Some of these problems are also found with other stress measures, chemical or behavioural>>> Some?! Which ones aren't? >>> But can anyone who really knows a lot about this stuff give me a good reason to have confidence in cortisol as a stress indicator?>>> Just make sure your expectations are consistent with what you know about the complexity of the HPA axis and how well the experiment was designed. (and use a definition of stress that includes cortisol). >>>Jon Watts>>> Jeff Rushen. From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 12-MAR-1996 10:09:28.12 To: IN%"HARRISM@sask.usask.ca" "Moira Harris" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: games chaps play (not science) Come on you chaps! OVER THE TOP!!!! Bang! Bang! **>>Blammmmm!!!!!<<*** KerrBOOOMM! Ratatatatatt!! Pop Pop! Pow!! Jon P.S. Now I've used up some of that pesky testosterone I'm feeling much more androgynous. From: IN%"MURN@URIACC.URI.EDU" "Murn Nippo" 12-MAR-1996 10:39:50.73 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: Applied Ethology-Stress, the Topic That Never Goes Away The topic of stress in recent postings has piqued some folks interests and probably caused others to duck and run for cover. I also think that the topic is a tough one to deal with through the electronic media, so I offer the following proposal: A large number of the list members are ISAE members. How about some room at the Guelph meetings for an infromal go around on the topic one more time? By then I hope I can read some of the references posted recently and join in with some of our own research results....yes we continue to measure cortisol. Murn DR. MURN M. NIPPO PHONE 401-874-2940 DEPT. FISH., ANIMAL & FAX 401-874-4017 Veterinary Science University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI 02881 USA From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 12-MAR-1996 13:49:22.87 To: IN%"rushenj@em.agr.ca" "Jeff Rushen" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Cortisol... How useful? Thanks to Jeff Rushen for his detailed dissection of my earlier message. Jeff, you were right not to believe me about wondering if anyone had a view on this. I should learn to write less disingenuously. I should have said "I'm wondering if anyone had a view THEY WERE WILLING TO EXPRESS". I stand corrected. I got a bit confused reading your message because every time I got going I tripped over bits of my old message. Apart from your general points about designing experiments properly, did I understand you as saying cortisol concentration is just an end product of a whole bunch of processes which may or may not bear on what you are trying to find out. And that its use as a stress indicator is ok as long as you decide that stress means "a thing which is indicated by raised cortisol"? I know you've said before that we ought to refrain from using the word "stress" and maybe you are right. This would be difficult. Everybody does it, and many have used cortisol to measure it. Even you. I was interested in your response to my remarks about people going up to animals and jabbing them to get blood out, you say don't do it, and I agree. But again, many times I've read studies where the experimenters have done things in such a way that you can't help wondering how much the data collecting process contributed to the "stress" of the whole experimental situation. People do literally jab needles in their animals every x minutes. Even if you have an indwelling catheter you have to get up close to the animal to get blood out. Other parts of the procedure might contribute too. I read a paper once which looked at the effect of isolation on sheep. The sheep was picked up and carried to the testing area. I reckon that any stress response could have as much to do with the handling as with the isolation. I'm not sure that experimental design, using controls etc. can ever overcome completely this kind of thing. I feel sure that once the system is activated the responses to the actual treatment will never unambiguously follow the trajectory you would have otherwise seen. I think the great advantage of behavioural over endocrinological measures for doing "stress", fear, pain etc. work is that they can be made to be much less invasive. From what others, including Ray Stricklin, have said they are no more subjective than the supposedly more "objective" bichemical methods. To some extent telemetry of parameters like heartrate, temperature and respiration shares these advantages. While attaching all the gear may agitate the animal at least there is the potential to allow the animal to recover, and measurement can be recorded with just the experimental treatment influencing the response. I had a view expressed to me by private email that one could think of cortisol as being like an IQ test. In that nobody really knows what IQ tests measure either. Obviously what an IQ test measures best is how good you are at doing IQ tests. A good analogy with cortisol tests which measure how much cortisol just got secreted by your adrenal cortex. Jon Watts From: IN%"Martin.Smith@hint.no" "Martin Smith" 12-MAR-1996 14:45:39.73 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: PREDATOR-LIVESTOCK CONFLICTS I would like to introduce myself as a new member of the Applied-Ethology mailing list with a request for information. I am currently involved with a project for the Norwegian government summarizing the available options for reducing predator-livestock conflicts worldwide. This is an attempt to provide politicians (and others) with a comprehensive, worldwide literature review of: the extent of the problem in various parts of the world; the solutions attempted (both successfull and unsuccessfull) against various carnivore species; and the applicability of these solutions to the Norwegian situation. We have a strong desire for this report to be of high quality and as complete as possible but unfortunately we have very little time allotted to us for the task (so what else is new!). For this reason I thought you may be able to help us. What I would like from the members of this group is a literature list of the articles you feel are most critical for us to review and include in our synopsis of the following predator management topics: 1. POPULATION CONTROL OF PREDATORS -BIRTH CONTROL -LETHAL CONTROL -TRAPPING -OTHER? 2. TASTE AVERSION 3. BEHAVIORAL AVERSIVE CONDITIONING 4. SHEEP COLLARS (BOTH LETHAL AND TASTE AVERSION TYPES) 5. GUARDING ANIMALS -DOGS -LLAMAS -DONKEYS -OTHERS?? This is not the entire scope of the project just my little area of responsibility, and we welcome any additional comments any of you may have. For background information let me say that most, but not all, of our depredation problems in Norway are brown bears eating sheep. In addition we have European lynx, wolverine, wolves (a few), golden eagles, loose dogs and perhaps foxes, all contributing to conflicts with sheep and reindeer. In the summer sheep graze freely on mountain pastures and are subjected to varying intensities of predation. I hope this is not an unreasonable request as most of you have your literature on some sort of a computer based system already. However, because of the limited time it would also be a huge help if you could send me paper copies of important articles from obscure or difficult to obtain sources. I will gladly pay for the price of copying or can copy things here and return your original copy. We welcome any additional comments any of you have to make and will probably be in touch with some of you regarding critical review of the finished product. Thank-you in advance for any help you can give us. Please contact me directly at my e-mail address or post address included below. Sincerely, Martin E. Smith ADDRESS: North Trondelag College PHONE: 47-74 11 21 43 Dept. of Resource Sciences FAX: 47-74 11 21 01 Post Box 145 E-MAIL: martin.smith@hint.no 7701 Steinkjer NORWAY From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 12-MAR-1996 16:39:27.70 To: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Cortisol... How useful? -Depends Jon Watts asks >>> did I understand you as saying cortisol concentration is just an end product of a whole bunch of processes which may or may not bear on what you are trying to find out. And that its use as a stress indicator is ok as long as you decide that stress means "a thing which is indicated by raised cortisol"? I know you've said before that we ought to refrain from using the word "stress" and maybe you are right. This would be difficult. Everybody does it, and many have used cortisol to measure it. Even you.>>> Let me put it this way. In a number of species, experiences that we would think of as unpleasant (i.e. electric shock, being dumped in cold water, hit over the head etc) lead to increased corticosteroid secretion. From this we can conclude that an increase in corticosteroid concentrations is a common, but not invariable, response to "suffering". Furthermore, increased corticosteroids can lead to reduced immune system functioning, possibly increasing the chance of disease, although they dont invariably do so. Supposing I wanted to know whether keeping a sow in a gestating crate caused her to suffer and, as a consequence, imperilled her health. Finding elevated cortisol among tethered sows would provide one unit of information to answer this question. It would increase the probability that I would say "yes" rather than "no" when asked if tethering was bad for the sows welfare. However, it would be very noisy information and I would be foolish if I were convinced by that one measure and I stopped there. My judgement would be much improved if I also took measures of aversion or used some preference tests, looked at other physiological changes often (but not invariably) associated with emotional suffering such as increased heart rate, or took direct measures of the immune system. From these measures I could also start to understand the causal sequence of events involved e.g. restriction of movement causes aversion which causes increased cortisol which causes suppressed immune system activity. [This is just a possibility. I am not saying this is true] However, it is possible that these other indicators would not support my inference based on the cortisol measure, in which case I would have to change my mind. Any one measure could well mislead me, but the more measures I took, the more accurate my judgement would be. I dont see how my understanding of the above situation would be improved if, as well as taking these measures and working out the causal sequence involved, I also said that the sow was "stressed". This would be redundant and confusing. >>>I think (CRASH!- sound of Jon Watts tripping over a discarded bit of message left lying around) the great advantage of behavioural over endocrinological measures for doing "stress", fear, pain etc. work is that they can be made to be much less invasive. From what others, including Ray Stricklin, have said they are no more subjective than the supposedly more "objective" bichemical methods. >>> This is mis-stating the issue. Behavioural measures and the various physiological measures are not substitutes for each other, because they measure different things and provide different sorts of information >>>To some extent telemetry of parameters like heartrate, temperature and respiration shares these advantages.>>> Again, these measure different things than cortisol. Heart rate and respiration most likely reflect sympathetic or parasympathetic nervous activity, which can be affected by different factors, and can have different physiological consequences than HPA axis activity. >>>I had a view expressed to me by private email that one could think of cortisol as being like an IQ test. In that nobody really knows what IQ tests measure either. Obviously what an IQ test measures best is how good you are at doing IQ tests. A good analogy with cortisol tests which measure how much cortisol just got secreted by your adrenal cortex>>> The analogy only holds if you think our job is to measure "stress". I dont believe stress exists. It is just a reified concept. We think it must exist because there is a word "stress", and people have got used to saying "I'm stressed" when they are uptight or overworked. Has anyone seen "stress" ? I haven't. I would prefer to say that what we are doing is trying to understand what affect the housing environment has on an animal's physiology and behaviour, and to make some judgement from that about what sort of welfare problems are likely to arise. Jeff Rushen From: IN%"scataway@presair.com" "Leo A. Novelli" 12-MAR-1996 18:51:59.86 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: PLEASE HELP - STUDENT RESEARCH PROJECT I am a college student attending Cal. State Fullerton and am doing a survey for a marketing class that I am in. The survey is based on a fictitious product used on cats that deters them from entering certain areas. Please help me by taking the short survey at the following address: http://www.presair.com/cat/ The only think I can offer as an incentive is that I will send you the results of the survey in June of 1996. Thanks in advance for your time. Leo A. Novelli scataway@presair.com From: IN%"kmorgan@wheatonma.edu" 12-MAR-1996 20:52:55.99 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cortisol... How useful? Jon Watts writes: > A goonalogy with cortisol tests which measure how much cortisol just >got secreted by your adrenal cortex. Is there no relationship between adrenal secretion of cortisol, and magnitude of response of the animal's HPA axis? If you are comparing a group of experimental animals to some control group, doesn't this measure tell you _anything_ potentially useful? --Kathy Morgan kmorgan@wheatonma.edu From: IN%"SGADBOIS@is.dal.ca" 12-MAR-1996 22:22:44.77 To: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Cortisol... How useful? A few words to say that collecting urinary cortisol is not as invasive as drawing blood. Salivary cortisol has been used also (and even fecal cortisol). We use urinary cortisol with our wolves at the CCWR (we collect "yellow snow"). Snowdon, French et al did the same with their marmosets: collecting the first morning pee... I would also suggest an excellent book by a very well known researcher on stress, Sapolsky: Sapolsky, R. M. (1994). Why Zebras don't get ulcers. NY: Freeman and co. Finally, a question: From where the idea that cortisol is not a good measure of "stress" or "strain" or "tension" or "arousal"? It is a widely used hormone and the literature seems to me quite convincing. The problems I have are more related to other factors such as personality and temperament (c.f. Sapolsky's papers). If "stress" was the only concept with a "semantic" or "existential" crisis, I would suggest to discuss more about it. But I think this is not going to be very helpful with the tone of some of the recent responses. Let's hope that we all (operationally) define the concept in our studies and make clear to our readers what WE meant by "stress" Simon Gadbois Canadian Centre for Wolf Research and Department of Psychology Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada, B3H 4J1 902-494-3603 (lab) 902-494-6585 (fax) 902-857-9206 (res) From: IN%"SGADBOIS@is.dal.ca" 12-MAR-1996 22:42:38.42 To: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.ca" "Jeff Rushen" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Cortisol... How useful? -Depends >Jeff Rushen wrote: >The analogy only holds if you think our job is to measure "stress". I dont >believe stress exists. It is just a reified concept. We think it must exist >because there is a word "stress", and people have got used to saying >"I'm stressed" when they are uptight or overworked. Has anyone seen >"stress" ? I have not "seen" it, but I do "feel" it. I have never seen "memory" either, but I can't deny its existence. Is "stress" the right word? Maybe not. Strain. tension, arousal are other terms that I can think of. Does "stress" exists? As a complex set of emotions, yes, as much as "fear", "anxiety", "happiness"... are we going to redefine the huge literature of stress physiology and psychology? No, I don't think so. >I haven't. I would prefer to say that what we are doing is >trying to understand what affect the housing environment has on an >animal's physiology and behaviour, and to make some judgement from >that about what sort of welfare problems are likely to arise. >>>"what affect the housing environment has...": ?? Aren't you going to give an operational definition of what you are looking at? Sorry, I really don't understand. If I may deal with a state of physiological or psychological "strain", "tension", "arousal", "stress", whatever, I have to be able to identify it, give it a name and a definition if I want to >>>"make some judgement from that about what sort of welfare problems are likely to arise" or at least be able to label the "effect" as positive or negative... or do you really mean "affect"...ironically, you may end-up having to name and describe some kind of "state" or "emotion" than may well be "stress"... My point is: use the term you want BUT define it well so we know what you are talking about. Simon Gadbois Canadian Centre for Wolf Research and Department of Psychology Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada, B3H 4J1 902-494-3603 (lab) 902-494-6585 (fax) 902-857-9206 (res) From: IN%"SGADBOIS@is.dal.ca" 12-MAR-1996 22:51:43.49 To: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Cortisol... How useful? A few comments: In behavioral endocrinology, it is a good idea to correlate behavior and physiology, i.e. behavior changes and hormonal fluctuations... it is the best way to determine if there is an actual link between "cortisol" and "stress" or GSR and stress EKG and stress, etc. Activity/reactivity levels are certainly important but may not tell the whole story. An animal responds to "stress" because it responds to its environment and adapts to it. Measuring physiological responses seems to me essential,and beginning with hormones seems reasonable. After all, a lot of the GSR, EKG, EMG-type responses will follow a rise in catecholamines. Long term stress will likely influence glucocorticoids levels... and GSR, EKG, EMG-type responses may not pick this up unless you have lots or data from previous hours, days, weeks, whatever. Simon Gadbois Canadian Centre for Wolf Research and Department of Psychology Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada, B3H 4J1 902-494-3603 (lab) 902-494-6585 (fax) 902-857-9206 (res) From: IN%"aols@sjv.se" "i djurmilj|" 13-MAR-1996 09:21:31.68 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: new subscription Dear all, ea of interest is behaviour of farm animals, both in general and in relation to animal management, housing and welfare. I look forward to interesting discussions and exchange of information through the bulletin board! Yours sincerely, Anna Olsson Swedish Board of Agriculture Division for Animal Production and Management S-551 82 Jonkoping Phone +46-36-15 56 35 Fax +46-36-30 81 82 . From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 13-MAR-1996 10:04:07.72 To: IN%"kmorgan@wheatonma.edu" "Kathleen Morgan" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Cortisol... How useful? On Tue, 12 Mar 1996, Kathleen Morgan wrote: > Is there no relationship between adrenal secretion of cortisol, > and magnitude of response of the animal's HPA axis? Absolutely! Magnitude of HPA response is exactly what cortisol tells you. It doesn't tell you what the animal is responding to, whether it is good or bad from the animal's point of view or what part of the response was actually caused by your collecting methods. > If you are comparing a group of experimental animals to some control >group, doesn't this measure tell you _anything_ potentially useful? >--Kathy Morgan kmorgan@wheatonma.edu > Potentially, yes. I'm skeptical about the quality of data obtained this way though. Certainly you can set up an experiment and find differences between treatment and control groups. But probably neither group shows the same response to the treatment as they would actually have had if you hadn't been measuring it this way. So while you may be able to discover the all-important statistically significant differences, qualitatively your experiment lacks some validity. You haven't actually measured what you set out to measure. To use another analogy. Heisenberg's uncertainty priciple says that you can't know simultaneously both the position and the momentum of a particle. The reason for this is that in order to measure the position you have bounce a photon off it. This will alter both the position and the momentum of the particle in an unpredictable way. If you want to measure more accurately you need to use photons of short wavelength and these will have a greater effect on the particle you are measuring. In other words, at the atomic level you alter reality by the act of measuring it. I don't want to push the analogy too far, but I'm arguing that in physiological AND behavioural studies too, the way you go about measuring sometimes alters what you see. I was making the point that cortisol studies may be particularly susceptible to this sort of problem. Simon Gadbois' yellow snow is one way to get around it though. Jon Watts P.S. I've never seen an electron, but I still get email. From: IN%"suemcd@vet.upenn.edu" "Sue McDonnell" 13-MAR-1996 10:58:49.57 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Ear Staples for Behavior Problem Horses I would be very interested to hear from any of the clinical behaviorists of any experience with ear staples to stop cribbing cribbing or to calm anxious horses, or any other application. Sue McDonnell University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine New Bolton Center 382 West Street Road Kennett Square, PA 19348 610-444-5800 X2221 610-444-0829 FAX SueMcD@vet.upenn.edu From: IN%"kmorgan@wheatonma.edu" 13-MAR-1996 11:34:21.74 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cortisol... How useful? In response to Jon Watts' most recent message: _no one_ has seen an electron--only what they interpret as indicators of an electron's presence. But that hasn't stopped physicists from talking about them, or from using them to develop ways to annilate other humans. I don't think the survivors of Hiroshima really care of the concept of an electron is a matter of semantic or theoretical debate. Similarly, I worry that we are spending so much time here worrying about the bathwater that the baby is going to slip thru our fingers. I use as many dependent measures as I can to tell me about an animal's response to some independent measure--both physiological and behavioral ones. And I am happy to learn of improvements to the precision of these techniques. But I am not going to stop doing research pending the arrival of _the_ valid, fool-proof, 100% accurate DV. First of all, I don't think it exists. Second, I won't live that long!:-) Short of developing a way to get into an animal's head and see and feel what it feels (maybe we all need to spend more time with folks like Temple Grandin), I can't see what else we can do, other than to of course acknowledge the limitations of our tools and thus our knowledge. That's part of what makes science tentative, though. And it is part of why there is room for us all to be a part of its endeavors!:-) Lots of room for new and better tools and ideas. --Kathy Morgan kmorgan@wheatonma.edu From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 13-MAR-1996 11:42:22.76 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: human and animal welfare and rights Dear All I have asserted before that there could and should be more collaboration between those concerned with animal welfare (and rights) and those concerned with humans. If you doubt it(or if you don't), read the following review by Roy Hattersley (former deputy leader of the British Labour Party) of 'The Age of Rights' by Norberto Bobbio (Polity 1996) which appeared in the Guardian Weekly 25/2/96 under the title Collision of Freedoms. Bear in mind as you do so David Fraser's article on animal welfare and values (Animal Welfare 1995, 4, 103) which said among other points that "Instead of trying to 'measure' animal welfare, scientists should see their task as identifying, solving and preventing animal welfare problems". Bear in mind also that the Five Freedoms includes what Hattersley refers to as "freedom to" as well as "freedom from". Mike Appleby There is no doubt about the basic principle which dominates the essays that make up The Age Of Rights. It is asserted time after time in the text. "The fundamental problem concerning human rights today is not so much how to justify them but how to protect them." That problem, Norberto Bobbio insists, is "political not philosophical". However, he still plays the philosophical game. Is it, he asks, possible to define those freedoms which, having been morally and intellectually justified, should be universally accepted and respected? He comes to what, at first, seems a gloomy conclusion. There are so many ways of defining "inalienable rights" and so many theories of how they are derived, that it is virtually impossible to create an objective test against which the conduct of all governments should be measured. But do not despair. The impossibility of setting out a cogent and convincing list of essential freedoms does not prevent the world from becoming a better place. "It cannot be said that human rights were much respected during the period when the learned all agreed that they had found an irrefutable argument for their defence." In any case, "the strongest argument presented by reactionaries in all countries against human rights ... is not their foundations, but their impracticability". So we have a professor of philosophy arguing that theoretical speculation is less important than practical action, promotion, monitoring and guarantees. But some of the conceptual problems remain and practice can only be improved by understanding the theory. It is "safeguards within the state" which are the main feature of the current phase. "Safeguards within the state" are more difficult to achieve "without an international jurisdiction able to impose itself on national jurisdictions". Until that exists, the British government will be able to reject the adjudication of the European Court of Human Rights. It is the obsession with independence that impedes supra-national supervision of the way in which civil rights are protected. So, as far as a universal code of rights is concerned, the 19th century gave with one hand and took away with the other. It was also the age of enlightenment which complicated the debate with the belated discovery that there are positive as well as negative freedoms. If (with Kant) we believe that the only inalienable right is freedom, and (like Hobbes and Spinoza) we define that ideal condition as the absence of restraint, all the rights arguments fall neatly into place. But once we begin to talk about "freedom to" as well as "freedom from", the issue becomes more complicated. For freedoms collide. In short, helping the poor penalises the rich. That creates a major dilemma for radical politicians who want to win elections in an affluent society. There will not be a genuine radical revival in Britain until those who claim to be in the vanguard of such movements take an interest in the principles by which their conduct should be guided. From: IN%"Per.Jensen@hhyg.slu.se" 13-MAR-1996 11:48:21.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Stress (can't help it) (Science)(Ithink) Dear Jeff Rushen, You forgot one important thing in the mysterious manners of man's (and woman's) mind: The search for parsimony. If an array of unpleasant things with very little in common (eg skin lesion, proximity of a predator, inability to carry out certain behaviour patterns, low temperature) all seem to evoke a limited array of physiological and behavioural responses, then my brain tells me that I ought to come up with a term to describe whatever it is that integrates all those things into a limited reaction. Since the word stress seems to capture important parts of this sequel of events, I find it quite useful. The study of stress is (to me) the study of this integrative actions of the organisms. It's another thing that there are 1001 limitations as to its generality and 1002 modificators that will affect the exact tuning of the response. Even if Selye got it wrong in his belief in the one and only stress syndrome, he definitely found details in an important organisatory principle in the way some vertebrate nervous systems deal with noxious stimulation. Interesting enough, all this resembles the discussions of another concept, "motivation". Even more interesting, I have found it fruitful to take a motivation approach to stress. Curious? Read Fred's book. Per ******************************************************************* Per Jensen Professor of Ethology __/\______________9 Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,\ o I Department of Animal Hygiene, \- I Section of Ethology \_______________I SKARA, SWEDEN /\ /\ E-mail: Per.Jensen@hhyg.slu.se / \ / \ ******************************************************************* From: IN%"arowan@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU" 13-MAR-1996 14:44:31.97 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Stress and All That With some trepidation, I am leaping into the "stress and cortisol" discussion. I sympathize with those who would like to jettison the term "stress" because it has become a means of spreading confusion rather than clarity. However, it probably will be no more possible to discard "stress" than "pain" or "anxiety" or some other term that involves both a fairly well-defined sequence of physiological and biochemical events as well as a psychological (usually human) element. I have long been interested in animal pain and in animal anxiety and have explored the degree to which such concepts overlap and differ. Some scientists and veterinarians talk of physical pains and psychological pains by which they apparently mean the aversive sensation carried by the nociceptors on the one hand and psychological distress (anxiety, embarrassment, fear, etc) on the other. I have been arguing strenuously against the use of the term "pain" to cover both sets of aversive stimuli with little or no success. In fact, there is considerable uneasiness with the idea that animals can experience anxiety and some reject it altogether. Scientists are used to dealing with measurements but far less comfortable with addressing the philosophical implications of those measurements or the terms used to describe and discuss the measurements. APPLIED ethology has to grapple not only with the measurements but also the philosophical issues raised by the terms we use when we attempt to apply those measurements to the value-laden human world. Simply abolishing the term "stress" will mean that we have to then use some other term such as "strain" and we will rapidly descend into the same morass that we currently occupy. For my money, we should either be careful always to define such terms in both academic debate and writing or we should establish a terminology committee that should ensure that the terms are used in a uniform way in at least the published literature. A journal editor could do it without the help(?) of a committee. I trust we are all a little more confused now! Andrew Rowan Andrew N Rowan Director Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy School of Veterinary Medicine 200 Westboro Rd N. Grafton, MA 01536 Phone: (508) 839 7991; Fax: (508) 839 2953 Email: arowan@opal.tufts.edu From: IN%"E.Kinnaird@mailbox.uq.oz.au" "Emily Kinnaird" 13-MAR-1996 17:55:14.86 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: measurement of epinephrine/adrenaline On the subject of alternate measures of stress, do you know of anyone who has validated an RIA or ELISA for epinephrine, or beta endorphin in the cat? I've burned the email system but find only measurement with HPLC or assays with very cumbersome preparation techniques and no named kits. I'd appreciate any direction you can give. Emily Kinnaird From: IN%"Magali.Hay@gstress.u-bordeaux2.fr" "Magali Hay" 14-MAR-1996 06:50:10.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: introduce Hello to all the connected ethologists of the world ! Well... Thanks for giving me a small place in your e-mail network. Since I suppose nobody from you knows me, let's introduce myself. I was born on a beautiful summer day in 1971... Maybe you have heard about brittany, the most beautiful countryside of France (and whom inhabitants or very chauvinist -like me ! -): it was just in= here...bla...bla...bla...bla... More seriously, I am veterinarian (graduated in 1994). Since last october, I've started a thesis on the vast and in-fashioned subject of Animal Welfare. More especially, I propose myself to determine the intervention of the HPA axis in the adaptation of farm animals (pigs and calves) to their environment, in relation with their behaviour. The supervisors of my work are Pierre Morm=E8de and Robert Dantzer, whose names will probably evoque something to some of you. That's it ! If you want to know more about me or my work, my @-box is open. Bye, magali. From: IN%"R0039586@haac.ac.uk" "PEARCE G" 14-MAR-1996 08:30:59.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cortisol... How useful? Dear All, I thought I'd put my 'four penneth' into the "stress" / cortisol discussion before it goes cold (for now at least?!). In an earlier message Jon Watts wrote: > People do literally jab needles in their animals every x minutes. > Even if you have an indwelling catheter you have to get up close to the > animal to get blood out. I'm sure that most of you are aware that the people who have seriously looked at using cortisol measurement (with or without ACTH challenges and / or dexamethazone suppression etc etc) are WELL AWARE of the potential for sampling technique to affect their results, and have gone through some quite involved procedures to AVOID it (eg acclimatisation periods, catheter extensions, screens, pre-treatment bleeds etc etc etc). In my opinion, the various methods available to assess physiological responses to stimuli (label it "stress" if you want) most certainly do have _A_ place in our attempts to understand the complicated inter- relationships between animals and their environment. Behavioural measures also obviously have _A_ role. Unfortunately, in my view at least not enough people try (carefully enough?) to COMBINE phyiological (I guess here I really mean endocrinological) AND behavioural methods in the same studies. I'm sure more of this would help both 'sides'. Its not enough to say "I'm an ethologist I can't touch a syringe or run an assay" or "I'm a physiologist I'm not interested in behaviour" - people must miss out this way. But then that's just my opinion as an animal scientist / veterinarian / physiologist / applied ethologist, (that should be enough labels for anyone :-):-) Gareth Pearce Dr Gareth Pearce BSc(Agr), PhD, BVSc, MRCVS Senior Lecturer in Animal Health, Harper Adams College, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 8NB, U.K. e-mail: gpearce@haac.ac.uk fax:UK m01952-814783 From: IN%"CHolm@ZI.KU.DK" "Holm, Christine {ZI-APB}" 14-MAR-1996 09:10:16.63 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology-error" CC: Subj: RE: introduce Welcome! If you provide your e-mail address you might even get some mail! :-) Christine Holm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Christine Holm, M. Sc. Dept. of Population Biology ----------------------------- University of Copenhagen Time flies like the wind Denmark Fruit flies like bananas E-mail: cholm@zi.ku.dk ----------------------------- Fax: +45 35 32 12 99 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------- From: applied-ethology-error To: applied-ethology Subject: introduce Date: 14. March 1996 13.55 Hello to all the connected ethologists of the world ! Well... Thanks for giving me a small place in your e-mail network. Since I suppose nobody from you knows me, let's introduce myself. I was born on a beautiful summer day in 1971... Maybe you have heard about brittany, the most beautiful countryside of France (and whom inhabitants or very chauvinist -like me ! -): it was just in here...bla...bla...bla...bla... More seriously, I am veterinarian (graduated in 1994). Since last october, I've started a thesis on the vast and in-fashioned subject of Animal Welfare. More especially, I propose myself to determine the intervention of the HPA axis in the adaptation of farm animals (pigs and calves) to their environment, in relation with their behaviour. The supervisors of my work are Pierre Mormede and Robert Dantzer, whose names will probably evoque something to some of you. That's it ! If you want to know more about me or my work, my @-box is open. Bye, magali. From: IN%"William_R_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu" 14-MAR-1996 09:37:51.95 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Welfare, not stress, is the topic Dear All, With all appropriate and due respect for the titles, publications, etc., I would suggest that some "just don't get it" or maybe "don't want to get it." 1) Welfare is very much related to what is happening "in the head." 2) Stress (if one accepts that it exists) measured however one chooses is a very poor method of determining the happenings in the head. 3) Behavior can be a fairly "good" indicator of what is occuring in the head. 4) Therefore, it would appear expedient for "science" to place the appropriate level of influence on the role of behavior when addressing the topic is welfare. And I do not accept that it is "always better" to measure both physiology and behavior. Cloaked within this statement is frequently the contention that behavior is only a science when studied in a physiologically-reductionist model. In other words, I reject the contention of those physiologists who only accept the science of behavior that can be explained via physiology - for this position in fact tends to thwart the very effort of those whose goal it is to study welfare (and at times ethology). I am not arguing for the exclusion of physiologists from discusions of welfare, or behavior for that matter. I am arguing that some physiologists and veterinarians with interests in behavior-welfare frequently present their discipline(s) to be inclusive and thus pre-emptive of ethology. I have suggested, and suggest again, that anyone being administered an exam in anticipation of receiving an advanced degree in applied ethology should be expected to defend the statement, "Animal welfare is more akin to the discipline of population genetics than it is to physiology." I expect that if this standard were implimented it would considerably diminish thre ranks of applied ethology. For those who may wonder why I propose such a statement about applied ethology, I would suggest they take another look at Tinbergen's 1963 classic paper, "On Aims and Methods of Ethology" (Z. Tierpsychol. 20:410-33) and then read some of today's literature from cognitive ethology (including a new book I just received by Bekoff and Jamieson, "Readings in Animal Cognition" - MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-52208-X). These readings I mention are all about behavior and very much related to the critical part of the animal welfare issue (the happenings of the head) - they have almost nothing to do with stress and are little related to physiology. The TOPIC is the biology of behavior (with maybe some philosophy thrown in, including ethics). The unifying principle of biology is evolution. Evolution is rooted in population genetics. The cutting edge issue of animal welfare today centers on the evolutionary aspects of behavior, including the mind. Or maybe to be more correct - especially the mind. Sorry, but it is time for the stress physiologists to either get on board or be left behind. Ray Stricklin Department of Animal Science University of Maryland From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 14-MAR-1996 11:12:32.40 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: In the head (philosophy?) Ray Stricklin is right when he suggests that the key to the welfare issue is to be found buried in the animal's head. I wish I hadn't said Ian Duncan's definition of welfare wasn't much use a few days ago. It actually focusses the mind very well on what has to be the major problem. We just don't have any good ways to find out what the animal experiences. This is a very difficult problem, philosophically, as well as practically. So difficult in fact that it doesn't get aired very often. Which is a pity. Yesterday I returned to Nagel's essay "What is it like to be a bat?" in hope of a bit of inspiration but all I got was a headache. Serves me right for reading it while hanging upside down in the lab I suppose. If I ever find a magic lamp with a genie in it I'm going to wish to be a cow for a day. Jon Watts From: IN%"F.Toates@open.ac.uk" "F.Toates (Fred Toates)" 15-MAR-1996 04:44:58.66 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: sorry - more sex info. Dear all, My last request for information was most successful. Several people sent me the Baker information and two sent extra sources. Thanks again to everyone for their time and attention. As the initial trigger to this issue, I found the subsequent debate about morals etc very interesting indeed. I now have another request and sorry but it again concerns sex. Does anyone know of any information for any species indicating that being in the presence of an animal that is already copulating tends to arouse sexual behaviour in an otherwise sexually inactive animal - Something like a Galef or imitation effect. Since I live in a rat world maybe I am cut off and this is all common knowledge to people working with domestic species. I tried two sexperts, Tim Halliday, who merely said it rings a bell somewhere and never managed to do better than that. To Michael Domjan it didn't even appear to ring a bell. So does it ring any bells out there? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Fred From: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 15-MAR-1996 10:07:11.37 To: IN%"F.Toates@open.ac.uk" "F.Toates (Fred Toates)" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Sex Info Sorry, I don't have anything to offer on this one. But if anyone does have a more useful response to Fred Toates' query maybe they could consider posting it to the group if they are not too shy. I would certainly be interested and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Ta Jon Watts From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 15-MAR-1996 15:57:23.45 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: stress and measures of animal welfare Although on a somewhat different topic, Mike Appleby states >>>Bear in mind as you do so David Fraser's article on animal welfare and values (Animal Welfare 1995, 4, 103) which said among other points that "Instead of trying to 'measure' animal welfare, scientists should see their task as identifying, solving and preventing animal welfare problems". <<< This was the main point of a review of animal welfare that I had written previously (Rushen and de Passille The Scientific Assessment of the Impact of Housing on Animal Welfare, Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 1992, 72: 721-743). We concluded that most of the so-called welfare measures we use at present, detect (and are fairly good at it) and identify specific problems that could affect welfare, rather than measuring overall welfare. We suggested that the problem finding/problem solving approach was in fact far more fruitful than the "comparative welfare assessment" approach. The main problem outstanding is how to weigh up different problems (i.e. are stereotypies worse than disease?). At present we cannot do this objectively, which is where our values have the largest impact on our conclusions about welfare. I suspect this is all very similar to the problems of how to assess "stress" i.e. we are measuring specific stress responses, rather than THE stress response. Jeffrey Rushen, Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, PO Box 90, 2000 Route 108E, Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada J1M 1Z3 Ph. 1-819-5659171 Fax: 1-819-5645507 Email: rushenj@em.agr.ca http://res.agr.ca/PUB/CDRN/portfoli/private/jeff/jeff.html From: IN%"S.Ireland@plymouth.ac.uk" 16-MAR-1996 13:43:20.75 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Forwarded: PLEA FOR HELP From: Chris. M. Thomas Organization: University of Plymouth To: AJMCLEAN, AFAVELL, CDENHAM, RKAVANAGH, TGREEN, VWALL, CBAZLEY, ADUNSTER, CPACKER, JMUNRO-CHICK, SIRELAND, JSPENCE, PBIRBECK, SSQUIRE, SHANRATTY, VELCOCK Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 14:50:30 GMT Subject: PLEA FOR HELP Reply-to: CM1THOMAS@PLYMOUTH.AC.UK Priority urgent DEAR ALL, I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO FORWARD THIS TO YOU ALL, I DON'T THINK IT'S A WIND UP, SO HERE IT IS....... Friends, My twelve year old sister has Leukemia and needs a bone marrow transplant to survive, but has no blood-related siblings. Her name is Karen, and she is 1/2 Korean and 1/2 North American (European descendants). Finding out whether or not one is an appropriate donor requires only a blood test. All expenses for the donor will of course be paid. If you are or know anyone who is of like origin, please email me as soon as possible at . I would also appreciate your sharing this message with the people you know. Karen's doctors are searching through the registered donor list, and haven't had much luck. Our best bet is to find someone who is not yet registered as a donor. I welcome any suggestions you have, and appreciate your concern. Thank you, Mike /\___/\ ( ^ ^ ) _ O O )) ( ~ ) (( - - )) / \ (( | | )) ~ Chris Thomas End of Session Chairman 1996 Seale-Hayne Faculty University of Plymouth Newton Abbot DEVON TQ12 6NQ (01626) 325817 JO IRELAND 32 Upper West Seale Hayne Newton Abbot Devon TQ12 6NQ ENGLAND