|
|
Swanson, J. C. (1999). What are animal science departments doing to address contemporary issues? J. Anim Sci., 77(2), 354–360.
|
|
|
|
Marshall, T. T., Hoover, T. S., Reiling, B. A., & Downs, K. M. (1998). Experiential learning in the animal sciences: effect of 13 years of a beef cattle management practicum. J. Anim Sci., 76(11), 2947–2952.
|
|
|
|
Spinka, M., Duncan, I. J. H., & Widowski, T. M. (1998). Do domestic pigs prefer short-term to medium-term confinement? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 58(3-4), 221–232.
Abstract: A preference test was used to demonstrate that gilts have the ability to associate two sets of neutral cues with two different periods of confinement and water deprivation and to anticipate the long-term consequences of their choice in the test. Twelve gilts housed in two large, straw-bedded pens were trained to go to two sets of 12 crates, positioned on each side of a choice point, for feeding twice a day. Following initial training, the two sets of crates were marked with contrasting visual patterns and the patterns were associated with either 30 min (`short' confinement) or 240 min (`long' confinement) of confinement in the crates after entry. During 16 days of preference testing, the gilts were sent alternately to one side or the other in the mornings and allowed to choose in the afternoons. Eight gilts chose the short confinement side more often, two, the long confinement side more often and two, each side an equal number of times, indicating that most gilts learned the association and preferred to be released shortly after feeding. However, gilts still chose the long confinement side on occasion, suggesting that they did not find 240 min of confinement very aversive. When the gilts were sent to the crates in the morning, their behaviour indicated that they expected to be released or confined depending on which crate they were in. The cognitive abilities of animals with respect to perception of time and anticipation of future events have important implications for their welfare. This study demonstrates that methods can be developed to ask animals about such things.
|
|
|
|
McGlone, J. J., & Hicks, T. A. (1993). Teaching standard agricultural practices that are known to be painful. J. Anim Sci., 71(4), 1071–1074.
|
|
|
|
Olesen, I., Groen, A. F., & Gjerde, B. (2000). Definition of animal breeding goals for sustainable production systems. J. Anim Sci., 78(3), 570–582.
|
|
|
|
Walter, G., & Reisner, A. (1994). Student opinion formation on animal agriculture issues. J. Anim Sci., 72(6), 1654–1658.
|
|
|
|
Davis, S. L., & Cheeke, P. R. (1998). Do domestic animals have minds and the ability to think? A provisional sample of opinions on the question. J. Anim Sci., 76(8), 2072–2079.
|
|
|
|
Gonyou, H. W. (1994). Why the study of animal behavior is associated with the animal welfare issue. J. Anim Sci., 72(8), 2171–2177.
|
|
|
|
Croney, C. C., & Millman, S. T. (2007). BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: The ethical and behavioral bases for farm animal welfare legislation. J. Anim Sci., 85(2), 556–565.
Abstract: Concerns about farm animal welfare vary among individuals and societies. As people increasingly consider the values underlying current farm animal production methods, farm animal welfare policy debates have escalated. Recent food animal protection policies enacted in the European Union have fueled highly contentious discussions about the need for similar legislative activity in the United States. Policymakers and scientists in the United States are apprehensive about the scientific assessment, validation, and monitoring of animal welfare, as well as the unforeseen consequences of moving too hastily toward legislating farm animal welfare. The potential impact of such legislation on producers, food prices, animals, and concerned citizens must also be considered. Balancing the interests of all stakeholders has therefore presented a considerable challenge that has stymied US policymaking. In this review, we examine the roles of ethics and science in policy decisions, discuss how scientific knowledge relative to animal behavior has been incorporated into animal welfare policy, and identify opportunities for additional refinement of animal welfare science that may facilitate ethical and policy decisions about animal care.
|
|
|
|
Duncan, I. J. H. (1995). D.G.M. Wood-Gush Memorial Lecture: An applied ethologist looks at the question “Why?”. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 44(2-4), 205–217.
Abstract: The question “Why does an animal behave as it does?” can be answered in terms of ontogeny, function, phylogeny and causation. The achievements of applied ethology relative to those four approaches are reviewed, gaps in our knowledge are identified and predictions for fruitful avenues of future research are made. Ontogenic studies have been useful in the past and it is suggested that studies of the effects of early experience on the sexual behaviour of animals used in artificial breeding schemes might pay dividends. It is proposed that functional studies should be approached cautiously. More information is required on the process of domestication in order to increase the chances of success in the trend to farm exotic species. Studies on causation are likely to continue to be the mainstay of applied ethological research. It is suggested that within this category, studies on states of suffering, motivation and cognition are urgently required to answer the most pressing questions on animal welfare.
|
|
