From: IN%"Willem.Schouten@ETHO.VH.WAU.NL" 1-MAR-1994 00:50:59.99 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Technology-Animal interaction Hello all, Who can and is willing to give me information about literature on technology-animal interaction. groetjes Willem Schouten ============================================================================== From: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca" 2-MAR-1994 20:28:51.61 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Technology-Animal interaction Willem, Perhaps you would care to define what you mean by "technology-animal interaction"? Wouldn't that include the response of animals to electronic feeders? When I first read your message I immediately thought of electronic sow feeders and the "learning" required by the sows, the establishment of entry orders, poaching feed, etc. Dairy cows must face similar "technology" interactions. Or did you have a completely different idea you associated with "technology-animal interaction"? Robotic milking? I think the list could be quite extensive depending upon the species and the boundaries you are placing on "technology". Fill us all in on what you had in mind? I would be interested in hearing what topics you were looking for. Thanks, Joe Stookey =============================================================================== From: IN%"Willem.Schouten@ETHO.VH.WAU.NL" 3-MAR-1994 06:14:36.53 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: RE: Technology-Animal interaction Joe, Thanks for your reaction. I have to give a lecture about the effect of technology (eg automatic feeders, bio-sensors, robotic milking etc, etc) on the behaviour of farm animals. Quit a broad spectrum, it might be wise to concetrate on pigs and cattle depending on how much information I can gather in a short time (2 weeks). So any usefull info is most welcome. Thanks Willem schouten ============================================================================== From: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca" 3-MAR-1994 09:25:32.30 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Technology-animal interaction For anyone interested in recent advances in technology for the livestock industry I recommend the Proceedings from the Fourth International Livestock Environment Symposium sponsored by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. It was held in Coventry, England on July 6-9, 1993. It is an excellent collection of the recent developments and many of the papers include the behavioural data of animals interacting with the new technology. There was also a recent symposium in Florida hosted by the same organization dealing with Dairy Technology. I saw a copy of the proceedings and it is another excellent collection of the recent technology and animal interactions, but specific to the dairy industry. I have tried to order a copy of the Proceedings from the Symposium in Coventry, but have not had any success. Does anyone know if these Proceedings are available to individuals who had not attended? How can I order a copy? Joe Stookey =============================================================================== From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN, AGRICULTURE CANADA, LENNOXVILLE, QUEBEC" 3-MAR-1994 10:14:38.27 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAE CONFERENCE Murn Nippo asked about the ISAE conference. I am not sure if the conference organizers are linked onto the network but the information I have received is as follows. The 28th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology will be held at the Research Centre Foulum, of the National Institute of Animal Science, Denmark, from the 3rd to the 6th August 1994. The nearest large town to Foulum is Viborg, which is on mainland Denmark i.e. the bit sticking out of Germany. Members of the ISAE should have received the Second Announcement with the call for abstracts by now. Nonmembers can obtain information from: The Congress Secretariat (ISAE) (Knud Bach Kristensen) National Institute of Animal Science, Research Centre Foulum, P.O. Box 39, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark fax:45-89991919 Abstracts must be received by the 15th April. Registration and accommodation requests should also be done by then. Papers accepted as spoken presentations will have their abstracts published in the Special Issue of Applied Animal Behaviour Science, which is being edited by the ISAE. Information about this can be obtained from the conference organizers. There will be four scientific sessions, each introduced by a key-speaker. These are 1. Stress in relation to production 2. Response of animals to environmental enrichment. 3. Individual variation in response patterns. 4. Teaching/training in applied ethology. There will also be a number of round tables, workshops etc, and there is a session for free papers i.e. those that dont fit one of the above. Posters may also be presented. I believe that the first D. G. M. Wood-Gush Memorial Lecture will also be presented by a highly eminent and interesting person (not to be missed!). I presume that the organizers will soon make further announcements about this. Non-members can attend and present a paper, although registartion costs will be slightly higher than for members. If you wish to attend the conference but are not a member, it is cheaper to join the ISAE. The membership secretary is Mark Rutter, Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, Devon, UK EX20 2SB Devon UK. Fax 44-837-82139. His email used to be rutterm@nw.afrc.ac.uk Regional Secretary for the US is Joy Mench JM59@umail.umd.edu We shall be submitting two abstracts: Effects of stress on maternal behaviour in pigs (co-authored by A. M. de Passille and Jan Ladewig) and Motivational basis of responses to environmental enrichment in calves: relationship between cross- and nonnutritive sucking (A. M. de Passille and N. Caza). Jeff Rushen =============================================================================== From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.edinburgh.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 3-MAR-1994 11:24:16.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: livestock environment Dear All The Proceedings of the Livestock Environment Symposium in Coventry (which I attended; as Joe says, it had some good stuff, although there also seemed to be a hell of a lot of papers on slurry) were published by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2950 Niles Road, St Joseph, Michigan 49085-9659 USA. Try writing to them to ask how to get a copy. Mike ============================================================================== From: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca" 3-MAR-1994 22:41:08.11 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: 1st Century We now have 100 subscribers to the Applied-ethology network!!! That is quite a huge amount of information, ideas and personal perspectives at your finger tips! Thanks to all of you for encouraging your colleagues to subscribe. I encourage everyone to generate and participate in discussions and to seek useful contacts through this network. Joe Stookey ============================================================================== From: IN%"@cunyvm.cuny.edu:VUZV1@CSEARN.BITNET" "Marek Spinka" 7-MAR-1994 11:51:26.91 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: nursing synchro in sows Dear all, In Prague (Czechia, Europe), we are about to investigate the degree and causes of nursing synchronization in group housed sows. Does anybody know about quantitative data describing nursing synchronization in a group of 10-30 lactating sows? Best regards, Marek ============================================================================== From: IN%"NEWBERRY@BCRSAG.AGR.CA" 7-MAR-1994 13:10:05.21 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: nursing synchro in sows For a description of nursing synchronization in a small group of sows in a stable social group, see Newberry, R.C. and D.G.M. Wood-Gush, 1985. The suckling behaviour of domestic pigs in a semi-natural environment. Behaviour 95:11-25. My interpretation of the data is somewhat different now than it was when the paper was written. I think that nursing among closely related sows could be considered communal. I think this is worth following up. Ruth Newberry ============================================================================= From: IN%"NEWBERRY@BCRSAG.AGR.CA" 7-MAR-1994 15:55:52.97 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: communal nursing by sows Yes, Jeff. Some cross-sucking occurred during synchronized nursings between sows. I attributed this to opportunistic behaviour on the part of the piglets with no direct interference by the sows. However, the sows were well-known to each other and synchronization was especially noticeable among mother-daughter pairs. It is unlikely that the sows would have tolerated the presence of unfamiliar piglets anywhere near them, and certainly not at their udder. Cross-sucking is very rare among wild ungulates, but pigs are unusual in having large litters. Cross- sucking has been observed in wild pigs. It would be interesting to know the relatedness between the sows involved, and whether synchronization of nursing bouts varies with degree of relatedness. Synchronization of nursing bouts is also tied in with synchronization of oestrus and synchronization of farrowing, since nursings become less frequent with increasing age. This also raises the question of the function of nursings without milk let-down, which occur in pigs in a semi-natural environment and not just in pigs in intensive housing. I wonder if this phenomenon also occurs in wild pigs. Does anyone know???? Ruth Newberry ============================================================================== From: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca" 7-MAR-1994 18:40:47.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Synchronized nursing in sows Marek Spinka wrote, > Dear all, > In Prague (Czechia, Europe), we are about to investigate the > degree and causes of nursing synchronization in group housed sows. > Does anybody know about quantitative data describing nursing > synchronization in a group of 10-30 lactating sows? > Best regards, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Off hand I am not aware of the quantitative data describing synchronized nursings you are searching for, but I was wondering about the "causes" you are investigating. I have always suspected that the "ultimate cause" for synchronization was just the direct opposite of what R. Newberry was suggesting. Namely, I believe (and have always told students when the subject arose) that because sows can not easily defend their udder during recumbent nursings that synchronization would be a selected strategy for insuring maternal investment is directed only towards your own offspring. Piglets can not be in 2 places at one time and if their own dam is nursing they would opt for their own mother. Other sows in the vicinity would take advantage of the same time period, thereby reducing the incidence of poaching milk by other piglets, since all the piglets would be "occupied" at the same time with suckling from their own mother. If 2 related sows wanted to share in maternal investment (because of their relatedness) they would be better off nursing asynchronously so that the litters have access to both sows. In synchronous nursings the pigs can only gain milk from one of the sows and will lose out on the other synchronous milk let downs. That has always been my interpretation of the "ultimate cause" of synchronized nursings. I realize that most groups of feral pigs are related, but there must still be some selective pressure to invest more in your own offspring instead of letting any pig, that happens to wonder by, access to your litter. Synchronous nursings would be an excellent way to protect your udder from "unwanted thieves" It seems that some of the proximate causes might be strongly linked to auditory cues. In some farrowing houses it is difficult for sows to see adjoining sows because of partitions, yet the level of synchronization seems high. Also, in a farrowing house where I spent a considerable amount of time the fans in the ventilation system turned on with loud noise levels, invariably all the sows would begin nursing their piglets. They seemed at least partially entrained to the sound of the fans turning on. It was too obvious to be coincidental. Just my ideas. If I am way off base tell me, because I may have been misleading students with my "ultimate explanations". Joe Stookey =============================================================================== From: IN%"Per.Jensen@hhyg.slu.se" 8-MAR-1994 07:09:28.62 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Location of Skara-institute Dear all, This is just a message to let everyone know that the board of our University has decided that the department of Animal Hygiene will continue to be located in Skara. The threat of moving to Uppsala with the deleterious consequenses it would have had for our research facilities is therefore gone. Many of you on this network have actively helped us in our struggle by sending letters to the board or otherwise acting so as to affect the decision. All our staff at the institute wish to express our gratitude. Thank you for your support! Per Jensen ============================================================================== From: IN%"Per.Jensen@hhyg.slu.se" 8-MAR-1994 07:15:59.51 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Synchronization of sucklings On the subject of synchronized sucklings, I just want to share some experiences. In free-ranging sows, sucklings are usually well synchronized, and just like Ruth Newberry, I have suspected that this was a functional way of decreasing cros-suckling. Cross-suckling as well as synchronisations of sucklings has been noted in wild boar. However, in recent experiments we conducted on the subject of cross- suckling, we did not find any relation between degree of synchronisation and frequency of cross-suckling. In fact, the group which had the lowest degree of synchronised sucklings had the lowest frequency of cross- sucklers. The paper is about to be sent to the publishers, so I will not provide too much quantitative data here and now, but anyone interested can contact me or Bo Algers for further information. Per Jensen ============================================================================== From: IN%"RUSHENJ@NCCCOT2.AGR.CA" "JEFF RUSHEN, AGRICULTURE CANADA, LENNOXVILLE, QUEBEC" 8-MAR-1994 08:18:55.95 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: synchronized nursing Joe Stookey wrote: ____________________________________________________ Piglets can not be in 2 places at one time and if their own dam is nursing they would opt for their own mother. Other sows in the vicinity would take advantage of the same time period, thereby reducing the incidence of poaching milk by other piglets, since all the piglets would be "occupied" at the same time with suckling from their own mother. If 2 related sows wanted to share in maternal investment (because of their relatedness) they would be better off nursing asynchronously so that the litters have access to both sows. In synchronous nursings the pigs can only gain milk from one of the sows and will lose out on the other synchronous milk let downs. That has always been my interpretation of the "ultimate cause" of synchronized nursings. ____________________________________________________________ I dont follow the logic. Consider two sows, A and B, where the piglets of litter B are older or bigger than those of litter A. If the sows are unrelated, it would be advantageous to sow B to let her piglets try to cross-suckle from sow A. Consequently sow B should not begin to nurse when she hears sow A grunting. Since her piglets are bigger than those of A, there would be little threat of piglets from A trying to cross-suckle from B (I assume that larger piglets are more successful at cross-suckling). However, sow A would be threatened by cross-suckling if she began to nurse when sow B's piglets were around. Therefore sow A should try to nurse whenever she hears sow B nursing. I would predict therefore that among unrelated sows, the sows with younger piglets would be more likely to try to nurse in seclusion, but would also be more entrainable into synchronized nursing. Sows with older piglets would be more likely to try to nurse in company with other sows and be less likely to nurse in response to another sows grunting. Jeff Rushen ============================================================================= From: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca" 8-MAR-1994 09:28:30.37 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: synchronized nursings in sows JEFF RUSHEN wrote: > I dont follow the logic (of J. Stookey). Well, Jeff, that is understandable since I am seldom able to follow my own logic after I reread what I have just written! But let me further comment on your remarks. > Consider two sows, A and B, where the > piglets of litter B are older or bigger than those of litter A. > If the sows are unrelated, it would be advantageous to sow B > to let her piglets try to cross-suckle from sow A. Consequently > sow B should not begin to nurse when she hears sow A grunting. > Since her piglets are bigger than those of A, there would > be little threat of piglets from A trying to cross-suckle > from B (I assume that larger piglets are more successful > at cross-suckling). However, sow A would be threatened > by cross-suckling if she began to nurse when sow B's piglets > were around. Therefore sow A should try to nurse whenever > she hears sow B nursing. I would predict therefore that among > unrelated sows, the sows with younger piglets would be more > likely to try to nurse in seclusion, but would also be > more entrainable into synchronized nursing. Sows with older > piglets would be more likely to try to nurse in company with > other sows and be less likely to nurse in response > to another sows grunting. > Jeff Rushen Let me start by saying that I am not sure sows "A" and "B" would follow your logic, Jeff. I think you are assigning way too much deductive reasoning to sows! First, a sow would have to assess her level of relatedness and secondly be able to assess the competitive edge of her litter based on age and size. I am not sure we should give sows that much credit! However, I will grant that my ultimate explanation about synchronized nursings being a strategy to protect the udder may be (partially) wrong. If we assume that only related females stay together in a natural setting (a setting that was the precursor for the domestic sow's behavioural repertoire), then the idea of unrelated sows "A" and "B" using synchronized or asynchronized nursings to some biological advantage might not be the issue, since unrelated sows rarely comingled during their evolution. If the assumption that only related females stay together (in an evolutionary sense) is true, then synchronized nursings must be a selected advantage for sows in a "related setting". Maybe I was wrong, and sows are not using it as a way of protecting their own udder, but as a means of insuring that all the "related" piglets are gaining access to any udder in the related group. Maybe synchronized nursings is a "pooling" of milk. Pooling milk would give equal opportunity to pigs of different ages and sizes. It would also help litters that are too large for a sow's own milk supply. Even with this explanation, I still think their would be some selective pressure to protect your udder from non-offspring and synchronized nursings would help to prevent the oldest pigs in the group from monopolizing every nursing. To understand the biological advantage of a behaviour we see in domestic species we need to know under what conditions the behaviour was selected for in an evolutionary sense. The key question in my mind really becomes, "What is the normal level of relatedness that is present in sow groups in a natural setting"? Also, we need to know if sows are assessing "relatedness" based on familiarity through association are do they really "know" if they are related or not? Joe Stookey P.S. Jeff, were you able to find any logic in any of this? ============================================================================== From: IN%"GONYOU@sask.usask.ca" 8-MAR-1994 13:04:40.52 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Symposium and Ethics Paper at Animal Science Meeting As mentioned in a notice last week, the ASAS/ADSA meeting in Minneapolis, July 11-15, will feature a symposium. The tentative topics of the symposium are as follows: Topic: Applications of Learning to Animal Research and Management Presentations: Principles and techniques of learning as they apply to research and management in animal agriculture. Presented by Dr. Lindsay Matthews, Rurakura Agricultural Centre, New Zealand. Assessing sensory capacities of animals using operant technology. Presented by Dr. Clive Arave, Utah State University. Aversion in farm animals: methodology and potential. Presented by Dr. Jeff Rushen, Lennoxville, PQ, Canada. Aversive conditioning in grazing ruminants. Presented by Fred Provenza, Utah State University. The program will also feature a number of presentations on ethics related to research and management in animal agriculture. Within the Environment and Behavior section the presentation will be as follows: Ethical issues in agriculture related to animal agriculture. Presented by Dr. Frank Hurnik, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Abstracts for the meeting have recently been submitted. I shall publish a complete listing of the papers to be presented in the Environment and Behavior section on the network as soon as it is available. Registration materials will be made available in a few weeks from the American Society of Animal Science in Champaign, Illinois. Harold Gonyou ============================================================================== From: IN%"SUMNERR@ruakura.cri.nz" 8-MAR-1994 19:19:27.83 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Nursing synchronisation in sows - Lindsay Matthews Joe, I think you're getting closer to the point in the final paragraph of your correspondence dated 9 March 04:28. i.e. we need more data! Teleological explanations are great exercises for the mind and perhaps for suggesting research directions but what we seem to lack is sufficient data to form a reasonable theory. What about the role of other influences on synchronisation e.g. initiation by the piglets (and associated survival value) or predator defense strategies in synchronised suckling? Cheers, Lindsay ============================================================================== From: IN%"Per.Jensen@hhyg.slu.se" 9-MAR-1994 08:55:27.62 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Communal nursing in sows Dear Joe, Your thoughts are very intriguing, but I really think Jeff Rushen made an important point. You can not dismiss his ideas because they are expressed in teleological and apparently purposive terms (which arises another issue for discussion - behavioural ecology is full of apparently purposive terminology; animals taking decisions, evaluating costs and benefits, etc. Of course this is nothing but a shorthand for saying that evolution has selected on animals that acted in a way so as to optimize their fitness. Of course there can be mechanisms promoting that younger sows attempt to synchronize with younger ones -sorry, older- without they being aware of what they are doing.) I think Jeff Rushen has come up with an interesting and novel suggestion worthwile of testing. However, I thought of another thing, which I do not know how important it may be. I found that up to about 30% of sows in free-range had alien piglets in their litters, permanently adopted. This obviously happened during the first few days of life. I would predict that a sow could never be sure (teleology again, but you know what I mean) which piglets are her own - the ones in the neighbou litter may be her full offspring. What would that mean for the degree of synchronization? Maybe communal rearing was so common in evolutionary history that it wsa beneficial to attract other piglets? Maybe synchronization evolved to facilitate communal nursing rather than the opposite? I will recommend two paper on the general issue: Riedman, M.L., 1982. The evolution of alloparental care and adoption in mammals and birds. Q.Rev.Biol., 57: 405-435. Packer, C., et al, 1992. A compartive analysis of non-offspring nursing. Anim.Behav., 43: 265-281. It appears that communal care is more common under captivity and in groups of high relatedness. Per Jensen ============================================================================= From: IN%"IDUNCAN@APS.UoGuelph.CA" 10-MAR-1994 14:16:18.86 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Terminology Dear All, I have been following the discussion on synchronous suckling by sows with some interest. However, a remark made by Per Jensen stimulated me to open up another topic. Per mentioned that the behavioural ecologists have used a lot of short-hand terminology - "strategy" being the best example. My problem is that many of us would now like to use these terms according to their correct meaning. What should we do? If I wish to describe a hen having a cognitive plan to do something (a strategy, in other words), and I want it to be perfectly clear that the hen is employing a different mechanism from the AIDS virus (which is often described as having a strategy), what word should I use? Apart from leading ethology down a side-road for 20 years (my first inclination was to say "a blind alley"!), these behavioural ecologists have a lot to answer for! Yours, Ian Duncan ============================================================================= From: IN%"William_R_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu" 10-MAR-1994 15:59:09.29 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Terminology According to my dictionary the word "strategy" etymologically is derived from a Greek word having to do with generals (as in military). The definitions listed are as follows: 1) the science of planning and directing large-scale military operations, specifically (as distinguished from tactics), of maneuvering forces into the most advantageous position prior to actual engagement with the enemy. 2) a plan or action based on this. 3) skill in managing or planning, especially by using stratagem [which primarily has to do with a trick or deception of the enemy]. I believe that ideas are the product of our toil in the academic trade and words are our tools. If we don't use these tools truthfully and accurately, then I would agree with Ian that we do an injustice to our trade. However, I am not sure who was first to change the meaning of the original word "strategy". Maybe ethologists have as much to answer for as do behavioral ecologists. ============================================================================== From: IN%"NEWBERRY@BCRSAG.AGR.CA" 10-MAR-1994 16:13:46.34 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Nursing synchronization AND terminology In response to Ian Duncan, the word "strategy" can be used as long as the level of causation being discussed is clear. In your case, you are talking at the level of mechanisms rather than at the level of function in an evolutionary sense. Regarding behavioural ecologists, if anyone is working up "blind alleys", it is us - applied ethologists! To get back to my favorite topic, PIGS, nursing synchronization is a case in point. How can we hope to understand the function of this behaviour by observing synchronization of nursing between sows in individual farrowing crates? Clearly, this is not the context in which this behaviour was selected. And for Marek, Joe, Jeff, Per and Lindsay, here is a further thought on nursing synchronization. When studying this phenomenon, it is important to consider the proximity of the sows and the exact timing of milk let-down. It is my recollection (and it's been 10 years since I worked with pigs) that, although nursing bouts are often synchronized, let-down may not be precisely synchronized. Thus, when (closely related) sows nurse in close proximity (eg. together in the same nest), a piglet can drink from one sow's udder and then whip around quickly and be just in time to grab a drink from the other sow, especially if there is a vacant teat due to the recent death of a piglet (or defection to another sow), or if there is a weak piglet who can be displaced. When sows nurse together outside the nest, they are not so close together so opportunities for cross-sucking will depend on whether piglets have time to get to the other sow before she lets-down. Of course, the reason for moving to another sow, occasionally or permanently, may have something to do with the quality of, or access to, the piglet's original teat. A piglet off drinking from another sow is not investing energy in maintaining its own teat by massaging after milk let-down. Ruth Newberry Agassiz Research Station, B.C. Canada Newberry@BCRSAG.AGR.CA ============================================================================== From: IN%"IDUNCAN@APS.UoGuelph.CA" 10-MAR-1994 16:46:32.84 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Terminology Dear All, Of course, as Ruth Newberry implies, we can be like Humpty Dumpty and assign any meaning to any term, just as we like. My point is, that using terms arbitrarily like this is jargon and jargon is the sign of an immature science. How can we (behavioural scientists) ever hope to be taken seriously when we use language as loosely as this? But I'm obviously farting against thunder. I'll shut up and let the behavioural ecologists continue with their "Just so stories". Yours, Ian Duncan P.S. I prefer Kipling's version of how the camel got its hump! ============================================================================= From: IN%"GONYOU@sask.usask.ca" 11-MAR-1994 09:23:00.25 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Subscriptions to Applied Animal behaviour Science The arrangement between the ISAE and Elsevier for reduced subscrition rates for ISAE members for Applied Animal Behaviour Science has been approved. The 44 members who applied for the journal will be contacted soon and begin receiving the journal (beginning with the January issue). For those who would like to subscribe at the reduced rate (about 85 pounds), they can contact Mark Rutter at "isae.membership@afrc.ac.uk". Harold Gonyou ============================================================================== From: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca" 11-MAR-1994 10:12:32.96 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Terminology Just so you don't start believing that the use of words with multiple definitions (and new meanings) is unique to the field of applied ethology you should pick up an immunology text book and scan through the glossary. Avidity: "Some authors use this term to describe the increased affinity that occurs as a result of multiple antigen-binding sites on an immunoglobulin. Others use it to describe the strength of binding of a serum with a complex antigen, while still others use it to indicate the rate of reaction between antigen and antibody. The term is probably best avoided!" Tizard,1988 I accept the fact that terms will have multiple meanings and be used to convey different messages. All we can hope is to surround each word in an appropriate context so that readers are clear of our intended meaning. It would be nice, however, to agree on the appropriate meaning and useage of some words so that we are not expected to footnote them each time we use them. I immediately think of the confusion over the use of "animal welfare" versus "animal well-being". In a paper by David Fraser, "Assessing animal well-being: Common sense,uncommon science" (appears in the 1993 conference proceedings and deliberations on Food Animal Well-Being) he did an excellent job describing in footnotes (17 lines) the context in which he was using the words "animal welfare" and "animal well-being". I just hope that at some point we can avoid the steps that David Fraser felt necessary for him to take inorder to inform his readers of his intent. Joe Stookey ============================================================================== From: IN%"CREGIER@upei.ca" "S. E. CREGIER" 11-MAR-1994 11:09:58.77 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Terminology Dorothy L Sayers had a beaut of an essay on the attempts of scientists, e.g. chemists, to select chemistry-specific vocabulary, devoid of anything relating to emotions, cognition, etc. If you know the Greek, Latin origins of the words which DLS played with in her witty essay, it can't be done. Everyone is an animist until a whole new origin of language is conjured up. Yrs for the horses, S. =============================================================================== From: IN%"@cunyvm.cuny.edu:VUZV1@CSEARN.BITNET" "Marek Spinka" 22-MAR-1994 08:53:16.62 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: nursing synchro Dear Ian, Jeff, Joe, Lindsay, Per, Ruth, I have been away from the network for some time. Let me have a few remarks to the discussion about nursing synchronization and cross- sucking in domestic (and wild) sows. What is striking is how quickly the question of the 'function' of nursing synchronization overwhelmed the discussion. This shows how pressing and ripe is the question whether we applied ethologists should adopt the methods and concepts of behavioural ecologists at once or, to the contrary, should avoid this 'blind alley' with great caution. I think we should either take the challenge seriously or drop it altogether. It is no use to go half (or even just a quarter) way. On a verbal level, you can propose with equal plausibility that nursing synchronization is a protection against cross-sucking of alien piglets (Joe I) OR that the synchronization is pooling milk in favour of weaker piglets in the herd's kindergarten (Joe II) OR that synchronization is strategy of the piglets who initiate nursings (Lindsay - note that when, for instance, two cousin sows mate with the same boar then piglets in the two litters are more related to each other than their mothers are) OR that it is insurance of the sows so that they do not reject alien piglets who happen to be adopted into alien litters (Per). Such verbal presentation may be a sufficient base for investigation of function in simple behavioural patterns. If gull parents take away from the nest egg shells, and you prove that nests without shells suffer less mortality than those with shells, it seems quite straight- forward that you have found the function. This is because only one animal is involved in doing the behaviour, and because other costs and benefits connected with this behaviour are probably negligible compared to the increased nestling survival. So you are left with just two behavioural options: to remove the shells or not to remove the shells. The former improves fitness and has thus become evolutionary fixed. The situation is much more complicated with pig nursing synchroni- zation. There are dozens of animals interacting, and they belong to different 'classes': sows with older versus younger litters, sows with large vs. those with smaller litters, sows more or less related, older piglets, younger piglets, top piglets in a litter, runts, siblings versus half-siblings ... Unless I turn my hypothesis into formulas and values, nobody can be sure what I really mean. Not even me myself. In order to my hypothesis to be unequivocal, two things must be specified. First, the 'environment' or 'constraints' must be stated, that is what I assume to be petrified in the situation, with no alternative options for the animals. For instance, you may assume that sows in a herd are always related by an coefficient 0.5; or that 10% piglets inevitably intermingle at birth; or that a piglet is 100% more vulnerable to predation during nursing than when active etc. By these assumptions I refer to the 'natural situation', i..e. condition under which the behaviour evolved. I doubt that our assumptions could be exact at the present time. Our knowledge of wild boar nursing behaviour is anecdotic at best; moreover, even the wild boar is living in conditions of cultural landscape, different from the forests which covered Europe before agriculture came, which might have changed the sociology of this species to an unknown extent. Second, it is necessary to specify what are the quantitative costs and benefits (in some suitable currency) along the scale of synchronization for the different classes of animals involved (). For instance, Ruth made an important point that when the nursings bouts are quite well synchronized, the milk ejection still need not be synchronized. This means that the cost for the vulnerable litters due to unwanted thieves may be highest in near-to-perfectly synchronized nursings, and the graph of 'costs due to cross- sucklers' as dependent on the degree of synchronization might have a shape of inverted U for younger sows. For the potential thieves, not only the benefits, but also the cost must be considered. It may be quite costly for a piglet which is resting to jump up whenever it hears an unsynchronized aunt grunting and to rush there and fight for any teat. If all piglets in the herd do that, fifty piglets will be fighting for twelve teats, and none of them will get a drop of milk. (May this be why Per found few cross sucklers in the least synchronized group?) In fact, the piglets have more behavioural options beside inducing more or less synchronized nursings: they may be loyal to the mother, they may be opportunistic or permanent cross-sucklers. For these three strategies, pay-offs are differentially scaled along the synchronization axis. Once both the constraints and the pay-off curves of behavioural options are set (which make up a model), mathematics can be used to derive predictions, which may be tested against empirical findings. (The model must be simple enough in order to be computationally tractable.) As a whole, I fear that such an attempt will be rather rough 'story telling', at least in the beginning. On the other hand, I see no way how to avoid the quest. Or can we simply ignore intriguing question 'Why do sows synchronize their nursing?' Terminology. Note that the term 'function' denotes something positive, something that helps the animal to achieve a significant goal, which, in the end, promotes its survival and reproduction. For instance, 'the function of introductory massage is to induce oxytocin release which is an essential for milk release'. However, behavioural ecology now speaks about 'the study of evolution' of a given behaviour rather than about 'the study of function' which was the original term in Tinbergen's Four Why's. This is because the mechanism of natural selection within populations (in which those animals are selected which achieve highest reproductive success RELATIVE TO THEIR CONSPECIFIC) sometimes (how often, in fact?) shapes the behaviour into forms which compromise the survival and reproduction of all participants in the behaviour. For instance, much of the begging in nestling birds probably evolved just because you cannot afford to beg less than the others; and begging more brings you an advantage until the others increase their begging, too. This evolution leads to quite high levels of begging in which, according to the model of Godfray and Parker (Anim. Behav. 43:473- 490, 1992), up to 50% of the food provided by the parents is dissipated. In other cases, a behavioural pattern become fixed in a population not because it has unconditionally higher fitness outcome than its alternatives, but because it has higher fitness outcome UNDER THE SPECIFIC STARTING CONDITIONS. For instance, this seems to be the case of obligatory siblicide in certain bird species, e.g. eagles. Mathematical model of evolution of siblicide by Godfray and Harper (J. theor. Biol. 145:163-175, 1990) shows that siblicidal behaviour prevails if the population starts with high frequency of siblicide, whereas siblicide vanishes if it starts with low siblicide. G&H write: 'if siblicidal behaviour evolves, it is difficult for non-siblicidal behaviour to re- establish itself, even when the benefits of siblicide are much reduced or negative'. The lesson from this is that especially in social behaviour, it may be impossible to find a simple 'function', i.e. a straightforward way how this behaviour promotes survival and/or reproduction. It may be still possible, though, to find an 'evolutionary explanation', i.e. to reason why exactly this behaviour became fixed among the possible alternatives. Such an explanation may be of little importance for livestock breeding and/or housing. More significant may be how the behavioural patterns (through whatever way they may have evolved) get expressed in the artificial housing conditions, how they influence performance and welfare, and how they will change in response to current artificial selection pressures. May be some methods of behavioural ecology can help us to answer this. Many regards, Marek  ============================================================================== From: IN%"H.HOPSTER@IVO.AGRO.NL" "Hans Hopster" 28-MAR-1994 08:15:23.86 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: pecking and scratching behaviour in domestic turkeys Dear all, Domestic turkeys on litter floors show much less pecking and scratching behaviour than domestic hens. Does their natural foraging behaviour also include less pecking/scratching or is this low level caused by husbandry conditions? When you have any relevant information on this topic, please feel free to respond. Harry Blokhuis =============================================================================== From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.edinburgh.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 28-MAR-1994 09:06:49.50 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: pecking and scratching Dear Harry and all, When you say that turkeys do less pecking and scratching than domestic hens, I think that you probably mean turkeys being reared for meat and egg laying hens. Broiler chickens do a lot less P&S than layers, except perhaps as young chicks, but I think that restricted-fed broiler breeders are comparable to layers. All of which suggests that this is a direct or indirect effect of food intake or growth rate, rather than other husbandry conditions. I don't believe that anyone has done detailed comparative observations on frequency of P&S but I would like to hear if they have. Skin scratching is a big problem in broilers and seems to be caused by the needle-sharpness of the claws. This is probably related to the lack of P&S as well as other activity, which also unfortunately means that the use of emery strips on feeders to blunt the claws is not an option. Mike Appleby ============================================================================== From: IN%"alp18@cus.cam.ac.uk" "Dr A.L. Podberscek" 28-MAR-1994 12:02:35.72 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAZ To all those in tune with animals, This is just a short note about ISAZ -the Internatioal Society for Anthrozoology. Anthrozoology = the study of human-animal interactions. This society was formed in 1991 and aims to promote the scientific study of all aspects of human-animal relationships. At present there are just over 100 members and they come from a variety of fields (anthropology, psychology,biology, zoology,veterinary science). Although most of the scientists in this society study human-companion animal interactions, this by no means is meant to exclude those who study human-laboratory animal, farm animal, wild animal, zoo animalinteractions. In fact, we welcome them. I'm sure many members of ISAE (yes, I'm a member) would be interested in, and be able to contribute to, ISAZ. For a membership application form, please send your postal address to me at: ALP18@CUS.CAM.AC.UK As this is my first posting to the apllied ethology net I thought I should introduce myself. I obtained my veterinary degree in Brisbane, Australia and also completed my PhD there. I have studied the behaviour of laboratory colony cats and rabbits (in two different housing systems) and looked at the reactions of these animals to familiar and unfamiliar people. As well, I have studied human-domestic cat interactions, the reactions of people to the loss of a pet and surveyed the public on their thoughts about animal experimentation. Part of my PhD was about aggression in dogs and I am now working full-time in this area at Cambridge, UK as a post-doc. Time to get off my soap box. Happy researching, Anthony Podberscek Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge Madingley Road Cambridge CB3 OES UK ============================================================================== From: IN%"bjarne.braastad@nlh10.nlh.no" 29-MAR-1994 08:54:33.29 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: pecking and scratching In Message Mon, 28 Mar 1994 15:06:51 +0000 (GMT), Mike Appleby writes: >Dear Harry and all, > >When you say that turkeys do less pecking and scratching than >domestic hens, I think that you probably mean turkeys being reared >for meat and egg laying hens. Broiler chickens do a lot less P&S than >layers, except perhaps as young chicks, but I think that restricted-fed >broiler breeders are comparable to layers. All of which suggests that >this is a direct or indirect effect of food intake or growth rate, rather >than other husbandry conditions. > >I don't believe that anyone has done detailed comparative >observations on frequency of P&S but I would like to hear if they >have. Skin scratching is a big problem in broilers and seems to be >caused by the needle-sharpness of the claws. This is probably >related to the lack of P&S as well as other activity, which also >unfortunately means that the use of emery strips on feeders to blunt >the claws is not an option. > >Mike Appleby Dear Mike and all, Are you sure that emery strips could not have some effect on the sharpness of the claws of turkeys? They are extremely efficient for laying hens, and prevents not only sharp claws, but also increase in length of the anterior claw with increasing age. Even if turkeys scratch less than laying hens, the claws might be kept blunt although perhaps still increasing in length with age. Bjarne O. Braastad Dept. Animal Science, Agricultural University of Norway ============================================================================ From: IN%"IDUNCAN@APS.UoGuelph.CA" 29-MAR-1994 09:02:02.87 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Turkey feeding behaviour Dear All, I have also observed that turkeys spend remarkably little time foraging. Casual observations on domestic turkeys (both growing and adult) confirm Harry's findings. In addition, we have four adult wild turkeys in large indoor pens with woodchip litter and straw bales present. Although i have not taken any quantitative measures of feeding behaviour, my subjective impression is that they do much less foraging than do domestic fowl. With reagrd to Mike Appleby's comments on strain differences in feeding behaviour in domestic fowl, it has been known for many years that laying strains spend much more time in foraging than do meat strains. The difference is almost certainly genetic and not do to husbandry conditions. See, for example :- Masic, B., Wood-Gush, D.G.M., Duncan, I.J.H., McCorquodale, C. and Savory, C.J., 1974. A comparison of the feeding behaviour of young broiler and layer males. Br. Poult. Sci., 15: 499-505. No doubt food deprivation can have an effect on the level of foraging - but there are substantial genetic differences between strains - just as there are surely big differences in feeding behaviour between domestic fowl and turkeys. Come on you behavioural ecologists, why don't you tell us a story of why this is so? For a title I suggest "Why the turkey gobbles his food". Yours, Ian Duncan ============================================================================== From: IN%"bjarne.braastad@nlh10.nlh.no" 30-MAR-1994 01:50:24.86 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Turkey feeding behaviour Dear all, When discussing the quantity of feeding behaviour in fowl, it is important to remember that only a small fraction of the foraging time is spent actively eating. Our laying hens in cages spend about 30% of the daytime pecking at the feed (4.5-5 hours a day), whereas it has been reported that hens can eat their daily ration in only 15 minutes (D.G.M. Wood-Gush and colleagues(?)). The interesting question is not why turkeys forage so little, but why laying hens do it so much. Obviously this must have something to do with frustrated motivation. Perhaps some of the feed pecking could be regarded as a type of stereotypy, e.g. because of lack of suitable substrate for dustbathing. (Klaus, where are you?) Then comes the hypothesis that turkeys have a weaker motivation for dustbathing than laying hens. Does anyone know about this? A problem with this line of thinking, is that I do not know how much laying hens on litter are foraging. Probably still more than turkeys would do on the same floor. Another way of thinking is of course to consider behavioural ecology, as Ian Duncan suggests. Is the laying hen an omnivorous generalist, while the turkey is more specialized in what it eats? Perhaps it is time that optimal foraging theory is used to study foraging and feeding in laying hens. This could perhaps be used to analyse the optimal distribution of feeding pans in relation to feed quality and litter quality for laying hens in aviaries and other alternatives to cages. Bjarne O. Braastad Dept. Animal Sci., Agric. Univ. of Norway, !s, Norway