Candace C. Croney

A note on visual, olfactory and spatial cue use in foraging behavior of pigs: indirectly assessing cognitive abilities

The micro pig’s (Sus scrofa) ability to use visual, olfactory and spatial cues to locate a food resource in a novel environment was investigated. In Experiment 1, four castrated male pigs were trained to identify a food resource—one of two plastic flower-pots placed within a 12.8m×6.7 m arena. Correct pots differed only in color from incorrect pots. During the first 10 trials, the location of the correct pot was constant, and pigs were allowed to search until the correct pot was displaced. Pigs were then presented 10 single-choice trials with constant location, repeated until each pig made 8 of 10 correct choices. Next, pigs were given 10 single-choice trials with location of correct pot randomized, to determine whether they would follow visual cues (color) or return to previously correct locations (i.e. rely on learned spatial cues). Trials were then conducted with 4, 6, 8 and 10 pots. In random location trials, pigs performed above chance (P<0.005). Experiment 2 was designed to assess performance with olfactory cues. Discriminative stimuli were food extract odors. Pigs were required to select pots containing a specific odor. Trials used 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10 pots. In all, except two-pot trials, pigs performed above chance on random location trials (P<0.005). We propose that when multiple cues are available, pigs can use vision and olfaction to navigate, rather than relying solely on spatial memory.

Bioethics Symposium: The ethical food movement: What does it mean for the role of science and scientists in current debates about animal agriculture?

Contemporary animal agriculture is increasingly criticized on ethical grounds. Consequently, current policy and legislative discussions have become highly controversial as decision makers attempt to reconcile concerns about the impacts of animal production on animal welfare, the environment, and on the efficacy of antibiotics required to ensure human health with demands for abundant, affordable, safe food. Clearly, the broad implications for US animal agriculture of what appears to be a burgeoning movement relative to ethical food production must be understood by animal agriculture stakeholders. The potential effects of such developments on animal agricultural practices, corporate marketing strategies, and public perceptions of the ethics of animal production must also be clarified. To that end, it is essential to acknowledge that peoples beliefs about which food production practices are appropriate are tied to diverse, latent value systems. Thus, relying solely on scientific information as a means to resolve current debates about animal agriculture is unlikely to be effective. The problem is compounded when scientific information is used inappropriately or strategically to advance a political agenda. Examples of the interface between science and ethics in regards to addressing currently contentious aspects of food animal production (animal welfare, antimicrobial use, and impacts of animal production practices on the environment) are reviewed. The roles of scientists and science in public debates about animal agricultural practices are also examined. It is suggested that scientists have a duty to contribute to the development of sound policy by providing clear and objectively presented information, by clarifying misinterpretations of science, and by recognizing the differences between presenting data vs. promoting their own value judgments in regard to how and which data should be used to establish policy. Finally, the role of the media in shaping public opinions on key issues pertaining to animal agriculture is also discussed.

The Ethics of Semantics: Do We Clarify or Obfuscate Reality to Influence Perceptions of Farm Animal Production?

According to linguists, the discourse of animal production uses metaphors, pronouns, and definitions that consistently represent animals as objects, machines, and resources instead of as distinct, unique individuals. Thus, it is argued that genuine concern for animal welfare is either obscured by financial concerns or circumvented entirely, which permits animals to be kept and treated in ways many people would otherwise find objectionable. Substituting euphemisms like crops, units, and harvest for herds, animals, and slaughter, respectively, which are more likely to evoke images of grape plucking than of killing animals for food, might indeed seem disingenuous, especially given the common industry refrain that the public needs to be better educated about food production. However, the implication that the animal industries deliberately use such techniques is debatable. What is clear is that the semantic obfuscations rampant in the language of modern farm animal production reflect underlying ambivalence about transparency relative to many standard industry practices. First, consumers are unlikely to want full disclosure of all aspects of animal production. Second, there is real risk that certain realities of animal production would be aversive to consumers, who might consequently refuse (as is their right) to purchase particular products, thus potentially causing significant short-term industry losses. Yet, the reluctance of animal industries to come clean in public education efforts raises another problem-that adopting innocuous terminology and withholding information deemed likely to be unpalatable to the public may be morally questionable in itself. Moreover, this provides an avenue for opponents of animal agriculture to exploit, because it may appear that the industry is hiding something. In truth, animal extremists are currently in a position to reveal facts about livestock production that might not only disturb consumers but also cause speculation about the failure of the industries to be forthcoming. As a matter of professional ethics and viability, animal industry members should objectively and aggressively evaluate the discourse of farm animal production to ensure that what is conveyed is accurate and intended.

Effects of rubberized flooring on Asian elephant behavior in captivity

Six Asian elephants at the Oregon Zoo were observed to determine the effects of a poured rubber flooring substrate on captive Asian elephant behavior. Room utilization also was evaluated in seven rooms used for indoor housing, including Front and Back observation areas. Data were collected in three phases. Phase I (Baseline Phase) examined elephant behavior on old concrete floors. In Phase II (Choice Phase), elephant behavior was observed in the Back observation area where room sizes were comparable and when a choice of flooring substrates was available. Phase III (Final Phase) examined elephant behavior when all rooms in both observation areas, Front and Back, were converted to rubberized flooring. Room use in both observation areas remained stable throughout the study, suggesting that flooring substrate did not affect room use choice. However, there was a clear pattern of decreased discomfort behaviors on the new rubber flooring. Normal locomotion as well as stereotypic locomotion increased on the new rubber flooring. In addition, resting behavior changed to more closely reflect the resting behavior of wild elephants, which typically sleep standing up, and spend very little time in lateral recumbence. Overall, these findings suggest that the rubber flooring may have provided a more comfortable surface for locomotion as well as standing resting behavior. It is suggested that poured rubber flooring may be a beneficial addition to similar animal facilities. Zoo Biol 0:1-11, 2007. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

BIOETHICS SYMPOSIUM II: current factors influencing perceptions of animals and their welfare.

To address escalating concerns about livestock animal care and welfare it is necessary to better understand the factors that may predispose people to develop such concerns. It has been hypothesized that experiences with, beliefs about, and emotional connections to animals may influence level of perceived obligation toward and therefore concern for animals. However, the extent to which peoples classifications of animals and their status as pet owners may impact their views on food animal care and welfare practices remains unclear. An online survey of 798 U.S. households was therefore conducted in June 2012 to understand differences in consumer sentiment towards various animal species, classification of certain species (as pet, livestock or neither), and variations in food animal welfare concerns between dog and/or cat owners and those who do not own such species. Sixty-six percent of households in the survey owned at least 1 animal. Forty-eight percent owned dogs, 41% owned cats, 3% owned horses, and 10% owned other animals. As expected, dogs and cats were classified by most respondents (90%) as pets. Most respondents similarly categorized rabbits (58%) and horses (55%) as pets, although consensus was not found for horses with 27% classifying them as livestock animals and 18% as neither pets nor livestock. Over 80% of respondents classified beef cows, dairy cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys as livestock. The majority of survey respondents were opposed to eating cats and dogs followed closely by horses due to ethical and/or spiritual reasons. Dog and/or cat owners more often reported having a source for animal welfare information (68%) than those who did not own these species (49%). Additionally, dog and/or cat owners were more concerned about food animal welfare for both domestically raised food animals and those raised outside the United States (dog and/or cat owners mean level of concern was 3.88 for domestic animal welfare and 5.16 for those raised outside the United States compared with non-dog or -cat owners with means of 4.46 and 5.46, respectively). Although a causal relationship cannot be established, pet ownership and increased concern for food animal welfare appear to be correlated. These data suggest that increased interest in protecting food animals may stem from interactions with and emotional connections to pets, especially when combined with other factors such as having a source for animal welfare information, education level, age, and gender.

Methods to address poultry robustness and welfare issues through breeding and associated ethical considerations

As consumers and society in general become more aware of ethical and moral dilemmas associated with intensive rearing systems, pressure is put on the animal and poultry industries to adopt alternative forms of housing. This presents challenges especially regarding managing competitive social interactions between animals. However, selective breeding programs are rapidly advancing, enhanced by both genomics and new quantitative genetic theory that offer potential solutions by improving adaptation of the bird to existing and proposed production environments. The outcomes of adaptation could lead to improvement of animal welfare by increasing fitness of the animal for the given environments, which might lead to increased contentment and decreased distress of birds in those systems. Genomic selection, based on dense genetic markers, will allow for more rapid improvement of traits that are expensive or difficult to measure, or have a low heritability, such as pecking, cannibalism, robustness, mortality, leg score, bone strength, disease resistance, and thus has the potential to address many poultry welfare concerns. Recently selection programs to include social effects, known as associative or indirect genetic effects (IGEs), have received much attention. Group, kin, multi-level, and multi-trait selection including IGEs have all been shown to be highly effective in reducing mortality while increasing productivity of poultry layers and reduce or eliminate the need for beak trimming. Multi-level selection was shown to increases robustness as indicated by the greater ability of birds to cope with stressors. Kin selection has been shown to be easy to implement and improve both productivity and animal well-being. Management practices and rearing conditions employed for domestic animal production will continue to change based on ethical and scientific results. However, the animal breeding tools necessary to provide an animal that is best adapted to these changing conditions are readily available and should be used, which will ultimately lead to the best possible outcomes for all impacted.

Modelling the time at which overcrowding and feed interruption emerge on the swine premises under movement restrictions during a classical swine fever outbreak.

A stochastic risk model was developed to estimate the time elapsed before overcrowding (TOC) or feed interruption (TFI) emerged on the swine premises under movement restrictions during a classical swine fever (CSF) outbreak in Indiana, USA. Nursery (19 to 65 days of age) and grow-to-finish (40 to 165 days of age) pork production operations were modelled separately. Overcrowding was defined as the total weight of pigs on premises exceeding 100% to 115% of the maximum capacity of the premises, which was computed as the total weight of the pigs at harvest/transition age. Algorithms were developed to estimate age-specific weight of the pigs on premises and to compare the daily total weight of the pigs with the threshold weight defining overcrowding to flag the time when the total weight exceeded the threshold (i.e. when overcrowding occurred). To estimate TFI, an algorithm was constructed to model a swine producers decision to discontinue feed supply by incorporating the assumptions that a longer estimated epidemic duration, a longer time interval between the age of pigs at the onset of the outbreak and the harvest/transition age, or a longer progression of an ongoing outbreak would increase the probability of a producers decision to discontinue the feed supply. Adverse animal welfare conditions were modelled to emerge shortly after an interruption of feed supply. Simulations were run with 100 000 iterations each for a 365-day period. Overcrowding occurred in all simulated iterations, and feed interruption occurred in 30% of the iterations. The median (5th and 95th percentiles) TOC was 24 days (10, 43) in nursery operations and 78 days (26, 134) in grow-to-finish operations. Most feed interruptions, if they emerged, occurred within 15 days of an outbreak. The median (5th and 95th percentiles) time at which either overcrowding or feed interruption emerged was 19 days (4, 42) in nursery and 57 days (4, 130) in grow-to-finish operations. The study findings suggest that overcrowding and feed interruption could emerge early during a CSF outbreak among swine premises under movement restrictions. The outputs derived from the risk model could be used to estimate and evaluate associated mitigation strategies for alleviating adverse animal welfare conditions resulting from movement restrictions.

Behavior and Welfare of Domestic Cats Housed in Cages Larger than U.S. Norm

ABSTRACT The effect of providing additional floor space on cat behavior and welfare is not well documented. This study involved replication of an investigation of cats’ responses to enhanced cage and room environments using cages of 0.56 m2 with the same methodology but an increased space allowance of 1.1 m2. Singly housed adult cats (n = 59) were randomly assigned to a treatment group that was a combination of a managed or unmanaged room and an enriched or unenriched cage environment. Cats were observed for 2 days for maintenance, affiliative, and avoidant behaviors using scan sampling and 5-min, continuous focal sampling. At the end of Day 2, cats’ reactions to the approach of an unfamiliar person were assessed. Cats housed in enriched/managed environments exhibited more maintenance and affiliative behaviors and fewer avoidant behaviors than cats in unmanaged/unenriched environments, suggesting that macro and micro environments may be equally relevant to the cat. Increased space did not enhance the cats’ welfare outcomes, suggesting that the provision of additional cage space may not be as important to the cat as a managed housing environment.

Stated Preferences for Dog Characteristics and Sources of Acquisition

Simple Summary How people choose to acquire dogs and the characteristics they seek may provide insight into perceptions of ethical and socially responsible dog ownership, as acquiring a dog is the first step in dog ownership. Even if one does not intend to acquire a dog, perceptions of acquisition methods may impact views of pet industries and/or voting behaviors related to animal welfare regulation. This analysis (1) investigates the relationships between U.S. resident demographics and their level of agreement regarding statements related to dog acquisition and welfare considerations, (2) analyzes the relationships between U.S. resident demographics and their views on dog characteristics, and (3) analyzes U.S. residents’ relative ranking (in terms of most ethical) ways to acquire a dog. The findings of the current study affirm that appearance, compatibility with owner lifestyles, previous experience, and cost inform people’s decisions about dog acquisition. The relative importance of these criteria varied across respondents; as has been previously observed, women favored rescue/adoption more than men. Our results collectively indicate the growing appeal of adopting dogs from shelters and rescue organizations for many respondent segments. Different segments of the companion animal industry and those with different dog interests may want to consider tailoring their education and/or marketing communications to these groups accordingly. Abstract People’s preferences for where they acquire dogs and the characteristics they focus on may provide insight into their perceptions of socially responsible pet ownership, as acquiring a dog is the first step in dog ownership. An online survey of 1523 U.S. residents was used to aid understanding of public perceptions of dog acquisition. Likert-scale questions allowed respondents to assign a level of agreement, within the given scale, to ten statements related to dog acquisition. A significantly higher percentage of women (39.6%) than men (31.7%) agreed that the only responsible way to acquire a dog is through a shelter/rescue. More women (71.3%) than men (66.4%), as well as those with a higher household income (71%), identified source as important. Best-worst methodology was used to elicit perceptions regarding the most/least ethical ways to acquire a dog. Three subgroups were identified, one of which had an overwhelmingly large preference share (96%) for adoption. The second group had more evenly distributed preference shares amongst the various dog acquisition methods, while the third indicated a preference for “homeless” pets. Additional investigation of the values/beliefs underlying the preferences of these groups is necessary to design appropriately tailored companion animal-focused communication strategies for these different groups.

Perceptions of Social Responsibility of Prominent Animal Welfare Groups

ABSTRACT Nonhuman animal welfare is an increasingly important component of consumer expectations of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The extent to which prominent animal welfare or protection organizations may influence people’s perceptions of food industry CSR may be related to an organization’s perceived social responsibility. Data from an online survey of 300 U.S. residents were used to explore relationships between demographics/lifestyle choices and perceptions of prominent animal welfare organizations (using best–worst scaling methodology). Overall, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was perceived to be the most socially responsible organization analyzed, followed by the Humane Society of the United States and the American Humane Association (AHA). Results suggest that the perceived social responsibility of animal protection organizations in this study was not strongly linked to personally (financially) supporting them, with 2 exceptions: the perceptions of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and AHA. Improved understanding of the perception of animal welfare or protection organizations can inform decision making by organizations interested in furthering animal welfare causes.