|
|
Henry, S., Richard-Yris, M. - A., & Hausberger, M. (2006). Influence of various early human-foal interferences on subsequent human-foal relationship. Dev Psychobiol, 48(8), 712–718.
Abstract: Whereas the way animals perceive human contact has been particularly examined in pet animals, a small amount of investigations has been done in domestic ungulates. It was nevertheless assumed that, as pet animals, non-aggressive forms of tactile contact were as well rewarding or positive for these species, even though the features of intraspecific relationships in pet animals and domestic ungulates may be to some extent different.We test here the hypothesis that horses may not consider physical handling by humans as a positive event. When comparing different early human-foal interactions, we found that early exposure to a motionless human enhanced slightly foals reactions to humans whereas forced stroking or handling in early life did not improve later human-foal relation. Foals that were assisted during their first suckling (e.g., brought to the dam's teat) even tended to avoid human approach at 2 weeks, and physical contact at 1 month of age.We argue that interspecies differences may exist in how tactile stimulation is perceived. It may be important for the establishment of a bond that a young animal is active in the process and able, through its behavioral responses, to help define what is positive for it. This way of investigation may have important general implications in how we consider the development of social relations, both within and between species.
|
|
|
|
Nicol, C. J., Potzsch, C., Lewis, K., & Green, L. E. (2003). Matched concurrent case-control study of risk factors for feather pecking in hens on free-range commercial farms in the UK. Br Poult Sci, 44(4), 515–523.
Abstract: 1. The aim of the study was to compare the management and husbandry of free-range flocks in the UK where feather pecking was either present (case) or absent (control). 2. One hundred flocks were enrolled into a concurrent case-control study: 50 where birds had recently started feather pecking, and 50 matched control flocks where birds of the same age had not started feather pecking. 3. Information was obtained from a detailed interview with the flock manager, and by direct inspection of the flock, house and range. 4. Initial univariate analyses revealed that case flocks were more likely to comprise ISA Brown than Lohmann, were more likely to be restricted from litter areas to prevent floor eggs, and were less likely to use the outside range. 5. Cluster analysis indicated that feather pecking was not associated with any particular husbandry system. 6. The only influential risk factor significant in the multivariable conditional logistic regression analysis was use of the outdoor range. The risk of feather pecking was reduced 9-fold in flocks where more than 20% of birds used the range on sunny days (odds ratio = 0.12). Use of the range was positively associated with the presence of trees and/or hedges on the range.
|
|
|
|
Hostetter, A. B., Russell, J. L., Freeman, H., & Hopkins, W. D. (2007). Now you see me, now you don't: evidence that chimpanzees understand the role of the eyes in attention. Anim. Cogn., 10(1), 55–62.
Abstract: Chimpanzees appear to understand something about the attentional states of others; in the present experiment, we investigated whether they understand that the attentional state of a human is based on eye gaze. In all, 116 adult chimpanzees were offered food by an experimenter who engaged in one of the four experimental manipulations: eyes closed, eyes open, hand over eyes, and hand over mouth. The communicative behavior of the chimpanzees was observed. More visible behaviors were produced when the experimenter's eyes were visible than when the experimenter's eyes were not visible. More vocalizations were produced when the experimenter's eyes were closed than when they were open, but there were no differences in other attention getting behaviors. There was no effect of age or rearing history. The results suggest that chimpanzees use the presence of the eyes as a cue that their visual gestures will be effective.
|
|
