‘Animal Welfare Science’ Category

2011 Research in Review

Monday, February 6th, 2012

Contributed by Alina Lilova

2011 seems to have been an exciting year for research in animal behaviour and welfare.

image from http://www.chickencare.net/

More studies emerged that found evidence of empathy in nonhuman species. Empathy is the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes, to feel his or her emotions. Scientists in Britain, cited by the Telegraph, found that when mother hens see their chicks experience something scary (having their feathers ruffled with puffs of air), they display the same signs of distress as the little chicks themselves. Meanwhile, a research group from the University of Chicago found that rats not only get “infected” by a trapped cagemate’s anxiety, but also gradually learn how to free their friend, with no training at all, and will choose to open his door rather than eat chocolate. (more…)

Why Even Bother?

Wednesday, January 18th, 2012

Contributed by Alina Lilova

I am writing an article about recent discoveries in the field of animal welfare and animal psychology. The wealth of new information is staggering; scientific papers are being churned out by the dozen every month. I just have to pick out a few juicy bits here and there: nothing easier than that. And yet, the moment came when I stopped dead in my tracks. “Wait a minute. What if people find this silly? You know, the way you shrug your shoulders at the millionth newspaper article which proclaims that 2+2=4 and calls it science?”

A pause for reflection is in order, then. I have to admit that in animal welfare science, a lot of the new evidence hardly amounts to a discovery but is mere validation of truths we know intuitively – or knew once but have forgotten in our post-industrial age. It is a little sad that we need statistical measurements of heart rates and cortisol levels to accept that cows have friends in their herd and get stressed when the farmer separates them, as reported in the Daily Mail. Another study which measured the heart rates of dairy cows showed that when one cow licks the face of another, the effect is profoundly calming.1

(more…)

The Ethics of Pedigree Dog Breeding, Part 1

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

“It is fascinating to speculate how dogs and humans might co-evolve further. We cannot say exactly what the domestic dogs of the future will look like because we do not know what future humans will need and therefore value. But pedigree dogs, as they are currently defined, are doomed.”

–Paul McGreevy, comment in The New Scientist (“We must breed happier, healthier dogs,” 8 October 2008)

Irish Wolfhound Sam, photo by Tirwhan, Wikipedia

Contributed by Alina Lilova

In my early teens, I used to worship the world of the dog fancy, which I was familiar with through hobby magazines and occasional direct contact. I could recognise dozens upon dozens of breeds, I would read their entire standards, I thought dog shows were fascinating, and I dreamt of studying “cynology,” or canine science.

How disenchanted I am today. Over the years, I slowly came to realise that canine science rests on shaky biological grounds because it is not dog-centric as its name implies. The individual dog doesn’t matter as much as the frozen ideal of the breed. Selective breeding isn’t used to create happy and well-adjusted family pets, but to improve “breed quality,” i.e. match ever more closely what the dog looked like in a mythical past or will look like in a utopian future, as laid out in the sacred books of the kennel club.  Other concerns exist, but they are secondary.

Obsessively pursuing the Breed Standard like a pack of hounds, breeders risk losing sight of the animal welfare problems that come with their quest. The first problem is inbreeding, or the crossing of related individuals. While many laypeople believe that pedigrees serve to make sure no close relatives are mated, in fact the opposite is often true. The second problem is exaggerated physical traits: dog shows, like those fashion shows with super-skinny models, don’t always have the participant’s welfare in mind. In this article, I’m going to discuss the two issues as well as give my amateur opinion on the historical roots of the problem. (more…)

Why You Can’t Tell a Sheep “Bon Voyage”

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

Contributed by Alina Lilova

Countless farm animals are subjected to long journeys across countries and even continents. To them, this is no small matter but a very unpleasant and sometimes even painful experience. The physiological evidence for this is plentiful. Stress hormones like cortisol rise steeply in sheep during transport, and ewes may skip or delay their estrus (heat) cycle. The immune systems of pigs become weaker. Chickens may overheat and die, even on cold days. Many animals also suffer injuries from bumping into each other and falling on the ground, and from poor handling when they are loaded or unloaded from the vehicles. Just the vibration and noise of a lorry can feel uncomfortable and scary to the animal, especially if he has been raised in a barren environment with little chance to explore new things. In fact, pigs who were placed in a transport simulator and shown how to turn it off quickly learnt to press the switch panel, choosing to keep the apparatus off most of the time.

As long as physical injuries and deaths are kept to a low percentage (and “low” is defined by purely economic considerations), the industry has little interest in shortening journey lengths or improving standards, and laws are often inadequate even in the EU – hence the large amount of undercover investigations, campaigns and petitions against long-distance transport.

At times the industry may argue that what seems to be a cruel practice is actually better for the animals. For example, currently in the European Union adult sheep may be transported for up to 14 hours, then given a single hour for rest, water and perhaps food, then travel for another 14 hours straight. During that time, they are usually packed like sardines in a box, with only a third of a square metre per sheep. Imagine travelling for 28 hours squeezed inside a dark, crowded bus and having no idea of what’s going to happen to you. It must be worse than being stranded in an airport because a volcano erupted in Iceland – and yet it’s daily reality for millions of animals. Nevertheless, some will have you believe that the crowding is necessary to keep the sheep from falling and hurting themselves on rough roads.

A group of scientists challenged this view in a recently published experiment. They put sheep in a double-decker livestock lorry and had a commercial driver give them a 6-hour ride along a variety of roads (from motorways to minor country roads). The sheep – ewes and lambs – were grouped into five categories with different space allowances, from the minimum set out by the European Regulation, to more than 1 sq. m per animal. Sheep with their fleece on had more room than shorn sheep. Cameras captured the movement of the animals and sent live video to the scientists.

Sheep packed in lorry according to the European minimum - which is often what the industry uses. Photo: CCTV by Jones et al.

The sheep who had more space tended to lose balance, slip and fall far less than the sheep who were tightly packed. The effect was particularly pronounced when the road was bad. Like people, sheep sought to maintain balance not by pressing onto their companions, but simply by spreading their legs or taking small steps back and forth so the inertia doesn’t rock them off their feet. No matter how social sheep are and how much they like to flock together, a crowded lorry would not be their idea of time well spent. Furthermore, the sheep were much more likely to be trampled by their neighbours when they had little space, and in one case it took a sheep over an hour to stand again after being forced to the floor. Also, after four hours of travel, many of the sheep got obviously very tired and wanted to lie down – but those ‘enjoying’ “the European minimum” didn’t have much opportunity for such rest.

If you would like to do something for the sheep and other species that commonly endure long journeys in awful conditions, check out NGO’s like Compassion in World Farming and Animals’ Angels.

Sources:

Appleby, M. and Hughes, B., eds. Animal Welfare. CABI Publishing, 2007.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_003/l_00320050105en00010044.pdf

Jones, T., Waitt, C. and Dawkins, M. “Sheep lose balance, slip and fall less when loosely packed in transit where they stand close to but not touching their neighbours.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123 (2010) 16-23.

Clever Birds Challenge Us Not to Parrot Old Beliefs

Friday, April 2nd, 2010

Contributed by Alina Lilova

African grey parrot, photo by Michael Gwyther-Jones

What is going on in the mind of an African Grey who mimics human speech? Is he little more than a voice recorder that “parrots” whatever you say? Some people still hold on to the old belief in the “dumb bird,” but over the years plenty of evidence has accumulated that points to the very opposite.

Early scientific attempts to test the language abilities of birds failed—not because the birds didn’t live up to the hype, but because researchers underestimated them. In the mid-twentieth century, mynah birds took part in studies where they would hear human speech on tape while housed in sound-proof boxes. The mynah birds learnt nothing despite the food rewards. That is, the experimental subjects learnt nothing: their buddies who were kept as pets in the laboratory, listening to the natural flow of human conversation, talked loads. It turned out that just like natural song learning, the retention of words needed a social context, with someone real to imitate.

A social context was provided to African grey parrots trained by Todt and subsequently Pepperberg. Their techniques involved two humans talking to each other, and proved much more successful. Irene Pepperberg’s famous parrot Alex (1976-2007) knew the vocabulary for different shapes, colours and materials. He could also answer the questions “What’s different?” and “What’s same?” about two unfamiliar objects — the shape, the colour, or the “matter,” pronounced “mah-mah” — as well as questions like “What object is round?” or “What object is bigger?”. Alex was also clever enough to know when to answer “None.” Similarly, he could use the numbers from 1 to 7 in a meaningful fashion and had a concept of zero. He used and understood about 100 English words and even invented a new one, “banerry” to mean “apple” (because he already knew the words for “banana” and “cherry”). Another famous African grey parrot, N’kisi, similarly used “flied” for “flew” and once said “pretty smell medicine” to mean his owner’s aromatherapy oils. Such innovative use of words points to some genuine understanding of vocabulary and grammar taking place in the psittacine brain.

When Virginia Morell, author of the article “Minds of Their Own” which appeared in National Geographic, visited Dr. Pepperberg a few years ago, she witnessed Alex practicing on his own, without the need of constant treats and encouragement. She also saw him tell off other parrots when they mispronounced words, and occasionally he would deliberately give a wrong answer to a question, as a joke, just to be contrary. It is only natural, she writes, that a species of such longevity and complexity of social organisation would have to rely on more than just instinct to survive.

Even more interesting—and certainly more controversial—is the telepathy research with N’kisi, who was mentioned above. His owner, Aimée Morgana, has recorded hundreds of bizarre telepathic incidents. For example, once, when she was in a room on a different floor but could hear N’kisi, she happened to look at the image of a beautiful purple car. She was marvelling at the colour when she heard the parrot upstairs say, “Oh wow, look at the pretty purple.” Scientist Rupert Sheldrake helped Morgana test N’kisi in a formal experiment. Morgana was looking at photographs which corresponded to some key words of N’kisi’s vocabulary. In the meantime, the parrot was recorded as he talked in another room, and his speech was subsequently interpreted by three independent transcribers. It turned out he’d scored far more “hits” than would be expected by chance. The methodology was criticised, as always in paranormal research, but that doesn’t make the study any less worthy of attention.

But if parrots can reason, joke and even ‘read minds,’ would they make great pets? I’m not sure, though I have never owned one. They seem to be like human children who need to be brought up very carefully and educated over long years. Like teenagers, even. At 31, Alex died relatively young, and Dr. Pepperberg said that he’d lately become “moody” and “like a teenage son.” (Interestingly, chimpanzee expert Jane Goodall also talks about how difficult, even dangerous, chimps become in their teen years—and how unwise it would be to keep one as a pet.)

Alex changed forever the way people would view parrots, but Dr. Pepperberg’s training and research took many years and a huge effort, and on the downside, this bird lived his whole life in captivity. He had a favourite elm tree that he loved to look at through the window. He would say, “Wanna go tree,” and perch on Dr. Pepperberg’s hand to go to the hallway for a taste of the green wilderness that was never to be his home.

Sources:

Griffin, Donald R. (2001). Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness. The University of Chicago Press, pp. 180-186.

Morell, Virginia (March 2008). “Minds of their own.” National Geographic.

Sheldrake, Rupert and Aimée Morgana (2003). Testing a language-using parrot for telepathy. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 601-616.

Spare a Thought for Seal Hunting

Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

Opinion by R. Cyril Roy and Selvi Roy

Two studies looked at the activity of seal hunting with a view to determine suffering. One was done by the International Federation for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and another by Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA). Even though both studies indicated that the current method of seal hunting involved suffering, the recommendations of both the studies varied. The IFAW suggested drastic intervention such us immediate stopping of the hunt where as the CVMA study suggested better management of the hunt.

One of the issues of contention regarding seal hunt, is identifying suffering during the hunt. After a seal is shot or clubbed, the seal shows some active movement of various body parts before the cessation of all its behaviour. There are different opinions on whether the animal is suffering during this period or not. Some feel that once the seal is shot or clubbed, it is unconscious and thus the animal does not feel pain even if body movements are visible. They feel that all animals show some movements before death even in an unconscious state. Others opine that the seal is conscious and thus is able to feel pain and is suffering.

Assessing how conscious a seal is after being shot or clubbed, needs the expertise of animal welfare specialists with understanding in physiology, neuroscience and animal behavior rather than pure mathematicians or statisticians. Science is a pursuit of truth. More often than a single line of enquiry, a multidisciplinary approach often gets the benefit of bringing together different viewpoints, allowing scientists to work together and come to a conclusion.

Such an approach will help the people and government of Canada get a deeper understanding of the pros and cons of this seal hunting activity and take appropriate decisions. It’s our personal opinion, in the interest of all animals and humans, that we should refrain from killing any animal. But a consistent science-based approach also has its merits in bringing people of diverse cultures together to a common platform on contentious issues like this.

Counting Rats?

Monday, March 29th, 2010

Contributed by, Nicola Gothard

It can be difficult for us to understand what goes on in the minds of other animals because at first they appear so different and let’s face it, it can be hard enough to work out what other people are thinking unless they tell us! So, researchers have to find ingenious methods of doing just that.

In one study, researchers put themselves in a rats ‘shoes’ to devise an experiment that would show them if rats count. They thought about the types of situations in which rats might find counting useful. Rats are nocturnal animals that find their way around largely by touch, smell and hearing. So, they devised a system of 6 tunnels arranged in a row along the side of a box. All of the tunnels had food in but their were hatches stopping the rats accesing the food in 5 out of the 6 boxes. The rats were split in to 3 groups; Group 1 rats could eat the food in tunnel 3, Group 2 rats could eat the food in tunnel 4, group 3 rats could eat the food in tunnel 5.  New tubes were used every time so that they couldn’t identify the current tunnel number by scent and swing doors prevented them from seeing which tunnels were blocked and the distance between each tunnel was changed at random. So, the only way the rats could find the correct tunnel number would be to count from the starting hatch.

The rats all successfully learnt which tunnel their food was in very quickly. The tunnel 5 rats were particuarly interesting because they went all the way to the end of tunnel 6 and then went back one tunnel to arrive at tunnel 5. Then they made it even more difficult by putting some of the tunnels around a corner but even then the rats went to the correct tunnel number.

It seems that the rats were using a form of counting between 1 and 4 to identify the ordinal positions of the tunnels. They certainly appeared to have an abstract internal representation of the world!

Source

Dawkins, M.S. (1998) Through Our Eyes Only. Oxford University Press. Pp 43-52.

What is Animal Welfare Science?

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

An opinion, contributed by Cyril Roy and Selvi Roy

Animal welfare science is a branch of science which identifies and quantifies suffering in animals. Some of the important components of this science are welfare assessment, pain assessment and risk assessment to relieve the pain of the welfare problem identified.

The fundamental building block of animal welfare science is animal behaviour. As each species has its own species specific behaviour, welfare and pain assessment tools have to be developed for each species.

Animal welfare science is still in its infancy. While welfare of pet animals has been in practice for some time, developing this science is the only way we can bring justice to lab animals like mice, guinea pigs and rabbits. The same is true for some slaughter practices, farming practices and managed wild animals. The ‘trickledown’ effect will also benefit the human species in terms of quality of living.

One of the important aspects of animal welfare science is that it has to deal with issues of a subjective nature like pain and discomfort. In order to tackle this,  a multidisciplinary approach which includes components of Mathematics, Chemistry, Sociology, Physics and also other disciplines should be used. For example, tools like thermography should be used increasingly to detect stress and pain.

Man and animals share a relationship in the ecosystem. Understanding and giving importance to this relationship also enhances human welfare.

What is an ‘enriched’ cage?

Monday, March 15th, 2010

Contributed by, Nicola Gothard MSc

From 1st January 2012 the conventional battery cage will be replaced by the ‘enriched’ cage in Europe. This article will take you through what is included in an enriched cage and what that means for laying hen welfare.

Enriched cages include:

    • 600cm2 of usable space – roughly the size of an A4 sheet of paper. This is only 50cm2 more usable space than conventional battery cages!

    • ‘Nesting’ box

    • Scratching mat

    • Perches

    • Claw shortening devices

Enriched Cage


    Scratch mat

    In a natural environment hens will forage for food over most of the day but in the enriched cage food only has to be dropped on to small astro-turf mats once a day. It is doubtful that all hens will be able to gain access to the mat or that it will be enough to satisfy the hens need to forage which will lead to frustration. Frustrated foraging behaviour is widely believed to be the cause of feather pecking (an abnormal behaviour only seen in captive laying hens).

    Perches

    Hens like to rest on high perches because it makes them feel safe but the perches in enriched cages are only slightly raised off the floor due to the low height of the cage. It is also unlikely that the hens will be able to roost/rest undisturbed on the perches because of the stocking density (the number of birds in a given area).

    Nesting box

    The astro-turf flooring in the nest box does not look or feel like nesting material and is only slightly more comfortable than a bare-wire floor.

    Dustbathing

    Hens become frustrated when they are unable to dust-bathe every day and yet there is still nothing in the enriched cage which allows them to do it at all.

    In my opinion, a cage is still a cage and hens should not be living in cages. They should be able to live more natural lives in  free-range or organic systems. The ‘enrichments’ in enriched cages only look good on paper and in reality do very little to meet the hens behavioural needs and improve their welfare. Please buy cage-free eggs!

How can we know how other animals feel?

Friday, March 12th, 2010

Contributed by, Nicola Gothard, MSc.

Testing a cows preference for a cooling shower in California!

There are good reasons to believe that all animals are sentient and experience emotion. From an evolutionary perspective, caring about what happens to you and even recognizing an inner sense of self that is separate from others, gives you a survival advantage.

An animal doesn’t have to do something extremely clever to be capable of experiencing emotion and in the very wise words of 18th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, “The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?’’

As Humans we have a preoccupation with the importance of language. We wonder how we could possibly know how other animals feel when they can’t tell us with words. However, at the same time we all acknowledge that ‘talk is cheap’ and ‘actions speak louder than words’ so why shouldn’t this also apply to other animals?

The most crucial aspect of an emotion is that it matters to us. Therefore if we want know that other animals experience emotion we need to look for signs that they care about what happens to them.

Researchers have begun to study animal emotion using preference tests. Fish have been trained to swim through hoops, raccoons to press levers and pigeons to peck keys to name but a few examples of training animals to express what matters to them. Rewards can include mates, nesting material, food or even audio recordings. The reasoning being that the more the animal is willing to ‘pay’ the more something matters to them.

To use a farm animal example, Hens don’t like going through small holes, so we can test how much they want something by putting a barrier between them and what we think they might want. The cost the hen is willing to pay can be measured by varying the size of the gap – the smaller the gap the higher the price.

Bubier (1990) found that hungry hens will hesitate, eventually passing through small gaps to access food when they are too hungry to resist. Hens are social animals spending much of their time with other hens when given the choice. So it was surprising to find that although they preferred the company of other hens, they were not willing to pay a price to get to them. Yet they would squeeze through small gaps to access a floor with litter to peck and scratch at and immediately prior to laying, hens would pay ANY price to access a nest box. This is interesting because it shows that things matter to hens and not necessarily in the order that we would presume. It also suggests that caged hens must experience a strong sense of frustration every day when they come to lay an egg or dustbathe.

This is just one way in which we can unravel animal sentience and begin to discover how other animals feel.

Reference

Bubier, N (1990) Behavioural Priorities of Laying Hens. D. Phil, thesis. University of Oxford

Dawkins, M.S. (1998) Through Our Eyes Only. Oxford University Press. Pp 43-52.