Abstract: Most social scientists would agree that the capacity for human culture was probably fashioned by natural selection, but they disagree about the implications of this supposition. Some believe that natural selection imposes important constraints on the ways in which culture can vary, while others believe that any such constraints must be negligible. This article employs a “thought experiment” to demonstrate that neither of these positions can be justified by appeal to general properties of culture or of evolution. Natural selection can produce mechanisms of cultural transmission that are neither adaptive nor consistent with the predictions of acultural evolutionary models (those ignoring cultural evolution). On the other hand, natural selection can also produce mechanisms of cultural transmission that are highly consistent with acultural models. Thus, neither side of the sociobiology debate is justified in dismissing the arguments of the other. Natural selection may impose significant constraints on some human behaviors, but negligible constraints on others. Models of simultaneous genetic/cultural evolution will be useful in identifying domains in which acultural evolutionary models are, and are not, likely to be useful.

Abstract: In an experiment on the effects of social environment and training on the human-animal relationship, 20 horses were handled according to a defined schedule. Eight horses were housed singly and 12 horses were housed in four groups of 3 horses. Horses were handled three times per week in 10 min sessions from an age of 6 months until 2 years of age during two winter periods. A total of 50 and 70 sessions were given in the first and second period, respectively. Five randomly allocated people performed the training. The training scheme involved leading, tying up, touching, lifting feet, etc. in 43 stages. The horse had to fulfil the performance criteria of each stage in order to get to the next stage. In the first winter period, horses were led to the stable when they had “passed” a stage or after 10 min of training. In the second winter period, horses would start off at stage 1 again, and when they “passed” a stage they went on to the next stage within the same training session. Because of the change in training procedure results were analysed separately for the two winter periods. There was a significant difference between trainers in the number of times they allowed a horse to “pass” a stage within each winter period (χ32, P<0.05; χ32, P<0.001 for the first and the second winter period, respectively). Group housed horses “passed” more stages than single housed horses (17 versus 14; 27 versus 18 in the first and second winter period, respectively; P<0.05 for the interaction). Singly housed horses bit the trainer more frequently than did group housed horses (P<0.01). The responses of group housed horses to training clearly demonstrate the benefits of raising young horses in groups.

Abstract: Forty Danish warmblood colts in two replicates were used to investigate the effect of housing and handling in the rearing period on the reactions to humans. The horses entered the experiment after weaning and were housed either individually (n=16) or in groups of three (n=24). Half of the horses from each housing group were handled three times per week for a period of 10 min. Approach tests were performed in the home environment when the horses were 6, 9, 12, 18, 21, and 24 months old, and an Arena and Human Encounter test was performed in a novel environment when the horses were 12 and 24 months old, respectively. In the home environment, single-housed horses approached sooner and were more easily approached by a human than group-housed horses where no effect of handling was observed. Horses approached sooner and were more easily approached with increasing age. In the Arena and Human Encounter test, single-housed horses expressed less restless behaviour, more explorative behaviour, and less vocalisation than group-housed horses. Handled horses showed lower increase in heart rate during the test than non-handled horses. There was no difference between the number of times single or group-housed horses touched an unfamiliar person in the Arena and Human Encounter test but handled horses approached sooner than non-handled horses. It is concluded that the social environment affected the way horses reacted to humans when tested in the home environment but not in a novel environment. In contrast, handling affected the reactions to humans when tested in the novel environment but not in the home environment. However, handled horses also reacted less to the novel environment in general, thus indicating that handling is a mean of avoiding potential dangerous situations.

Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the behavior and physiologic responses of mares to removal from an established pasture herd and to isolation in a pasture setting for 6 h (Group I, n=5). Responses of mares in Group I were compared to mares that were transported and returned to the herd (Group T, n=5) and to mares moved to the isolation pasture with a companion (Group C, n=5). Behavior was recorded continuously for 6 h on the day before the isolation procedures (baseline, Day 0) and again on the day of the procedure (test, Day 1). Plasma cortisol, white blood cell count (WBC), neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (N:L), and hematocrit (HCT) were measured once on Day 0 (a.m.) and twice on Day 1 (a.m. and p.m.). Heart rate (HR) was monitored continuously during Day 0 and Day 1. Intradermal response to phytohemagglutinin (PHA) injection was measured 18 h following injection, which was administered at the end of Day 1. Average time spent standing alert increased (P<0.05) in Groups I and C and average time spent grazing decreased (P<0.05) in Group C from Day 0 to Day 1. Also, there was a significant difference between groups (based on a calculated χ2-square value) in the proportion of mares that autogroomed, defecated, urinated, rolled, and whinnied on Day 1. Activity shift rate (ASR) and temperament scores increased significantly in Groups I and C from Day 0 to Day 1 (P<0.05). Plasma cortisol increased significantly in all groups from Day 0 to Day 1, a.m. (P<0.05) and decreased significantly from Day 1, a.m. to Day 1, p.m. (P<0.05). HCT significantly increased in all three groups from Day 0 to Day 1, a.m. (P<0.05). WBC significantly increased in Group T from Day 0 to Day 1, a.m. (P<0.05). N:L ratio significantly increased in Groups I and C from Day 0 and Day 1, a.m. to Day 1, p.m. (P<0.05). A variety of measures did indicate a response to removal from the pasture group, however, the overall, short-term response was minimal. Since the responses of Groups I and C were similar, the effects of isolation versus a novel environment or separation from the established herd could not be differentiated.

Abstract: Animal welfare, or well-being, is a social issue with ethical, scientific, political, and aesthetic properties. Answering questions about the welfare of animals requires scientific definition, assessment, solutions, and public acceptance. With respect to the actual well-being of the animal, most issues are centered on how the animal “feels” when managed within a specific level of confinement, during special agricultural practices (e.g., tail docking, beak trimming, etc.) and handling. Questions of this nature may require exploration of animal cognition, motivation, perception, and emotional states in addition to more commonly recognized indicators of well-being. Several general approaches have emerged for solving problems concerning animal well-being in intensive production systems: environmental, genetic, and therapeutic. Environmental approaches involve modifying existing systems to accommodate specific welfare concerns or development of alternative systems. Genetic approaches involve changing the behavioral and (or) physiological nature of the animal to reduce or eliminate behaviors that are undesirable within intensive system. Therapeutic approaches of a physical (tail docking, beak trimming) and physiological (drug and nutritional therapy) nature bring both concern and promise with regard to the reduction of confinement stress. Finally, the recent focus on commodity quality assurance programs may indirectly provide benefits for animal well-being. Although research in the area of animal well-being will provide important information for better animal management, handling, care, and the physical design of intensive production systems there is still some uncertainty regarding public acceptance. The aesthetics of modern intensive production systems may have as much to do with public acceptance as with science.