ACVB Seminal Articles Flashcards
Clegg et al. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2008.
What was the study design?
Data were gathered on the behavioural and physiological characteristics of five cribbers, six weavers and six non-stereotypic (control) mature Thoroughbred geldings for a period of 16 weeks. The horses were hired from their owners and stabled individually throughout the trial. Cribbers and weavers had been known to stereotype for at least 12 months prior to commencement of the study. Behavioural data were collected using video surveillance.
Clegg et al. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2008.
At what times did cribbers stereotype most frequently? What about weavers?
Cribbers stereotyped most frequently (P < 0.001) in the period 2–8 h following delivery of concentrated food, reinforcing the suggestion that diet is implicated in cribbing behaviour. Weavers stereotyped most frequently (P < 0.001) during periods of high environmental activity such as during routine pre-feeding activities and in the hour prior to daily turnout, presumably when anticipation and stimulation were at their highest levels.
Clegg et al. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2008.
Did cribbers and weavers take more or less time to consume their feed compared to control horses?
Cribbers and weavers took longer than control horses to fully consume their ration, suggesting possible differences in motivation to feed, distress levels, satiety mechanisms or abdominal discomfort.
Clegg et al. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2008.
How did oro-caecal transit time, digestibility, plasma cortisol concentration and heart rate vary between the cribbing/weaving horses and the control horses?
Physiological data were collected throughout the trial and there were no differences in oro-caecal transit time, digestibility, plasma cortisol concentration or heart rate among the three behavioural groups.
Clegg et al. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2008. How do they define stereotypies?
Relatively invariant behaviour patterns with no apparent function.
Clegg et al. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2008.
What percentage of stabled horses display stereotypies?
These authors reference Nicol. 1999. Proceedings of the BEVA Specialist Days on Behaviour and Nutrition.
Oral and locomotory stereotypies are common among
intensively managed horses, being reported in approximately 4% and 3% of the adult horse
population, respectively.
Clegg et al. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2008. Numerous management techniques have been blamed for the development of stereotypies
in horses. Which are discussed in this paper?
These include confinement, isolation from other horses, provision of small concentrated feeds and both a lack of stimulation and
an over-abundance of environmental activity.
Clegg et al. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2008.
The horses in this study were stabled for the average number of hours per day of stabled race horses. How long is that?
These authors reference McGreevy. 1994. Equine Behavior: A Guide for Veterinarians and Equine Scientists.
Horses spent 22 h per day in their stables, in accordance with usual confinement of a stabled race horse
(McGreevy, 2004).
Clegg et al. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2008.
How many times per day did cribbers crib?
Cribbers were observed to crib-bite 147.0 +/-33.1 times per daily period of observation. Since
horses were each only observed for 10% of the 22 h that they were in the stables each day
(132 min of observation per day in total), the actual cribbing frequency is likely to have been
approximately 1470 events per horse per day, assuming behaviour was evenly distributed
throughout each 5 min block.
Clegg et al. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2008.
How many times per day did weavers weave?
Weavers were observed to weave 53.0 +/- 12.4 times per daily period of observation, equating to a daily weaving frequency of approximately 530 events per
horse.
Clegg et al. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2008.
It is common to hear in the riding community that horses learn stereotypies through mimicry. Is this idea supported by the findings of this study?
No. No stereotypic behaviour was observed in any of the control horses in this study, despite visual contact with stereotypic horses. This short-term finding supports the research of Marsden (1995) and McGreevy (1999), which also suggest that horses do not learn these behaviours by mimicry.
Clegg et al. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2008.
Do the authors believe that cribbing in their study can be explained by gastric pain?
Maybe. The finding that cribbers stereotype most frequently during and particularly following
consumption of meals supports the results of other researchers (Kennedy et al., 1993; Gillham
et al., 1994; McGreevy et al., 1995; McGreevy and Nicol, 1998a; Cooper et al., 2005). However,
the peak cribbing frequency in the current study began 2–4 h post-feeding and reached its highest
point 6–8 h post-feeding, which is a longer time-frame than previously reported. This suggests
that gastric pain was not the sole source of any visceral discomfort that cribbers underwent in the
current study. If cribbing is indeed a response to visceral discomfort, it appears more probable
from the current data, that it is related to fermentative acidosis in the hindgut, since the
commencement of the period of maximal post-feeding cribbing (between 2 and 8 h post-feeding)
coincided temporally with the initial arrival of ingesta in the caecum (approximately 110 min
post-feeding). That said, it is also possible
that there is a cumulative effect of concentrated food reaching the inflamed gastric lining,
resulting in greater discomfort as the horse continues to eat for up to 9 h after delivery of the
ration.
Clegg et al. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2008.
Do the authors report that cribbing increases or decreases oro-caecal transit time?
Cribbers tended to have a shorter oro-caecal transit time than control horses. This differs from
the findings of McGreevy and Nicol (1998b), who have suggested that cribbing may help to
shorten oro-caecal transit time in horses that would otherwise have a slow rate of passage through
the foregut, resulting in a decrease in their oro-caecal transit time to within a normal range. In the
current study, it is possible that cribbing may have shortened oro-caecal transit time even more
than has been reported previously
Clegg et al. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2008.
DO the findings of this study support the idea that cribbing occurs as a result of a horses unmet need to forage (motivation to display foraging behavior when no feed is available)?
No. The theory that cribbing occurs in stabled horses as a result of a behavioural need to
feed is questioned by this research, particularly as cribbing occurred while feed was still
available.
Curtis, Knowles, Crowell-Davis 2003. AJVR.
Free-living domestic cats form social groups. Who are these groups typically composed of?
Females who are usually related and their offspring. Female kinship is basis of group formation.
Curtis, Knowles, Crowell-Davis 2003. AJVR.
Allogrooming in cats occurs as part of:
- Mating (Bradshaw/Cameron-Beaumont)
- Mother-young interactions (same authors)
- Between sexually intact adult cats that are not mother-offspring pairs
- Between all sex combos
Curtis, Knowles, Crowell-Davis 2003. AJVR.
What is function of allogrooming?
Primarily social, except when young kittens groomed by Mom
Curtis, Knowles, Crowell-Davis 2003. AJVR.
What was a relative equivalent in this study?
Cat who was not related to the focal cat but who had been in the colony for the same amount of time as the focal cat
Curtis, Knowles, Crowell-Davis 2003. AJVR.
What was the stipulation when the term “related” was used to describe the cats studied in the colony?
Only referred to matrilineal relationships b/c paternity was unknown for these cats
Curtis, Knowles, Crowell-Davis 2003. AJVR.
The number of times a cat was within 1 meter of a focal cat (the individual cat who was being observed by the researchers) and allogroomed by a given cat was significantly associated with what?
Being a relative and familiarity between cats (ie, how long they had lived together)
Curtis, Knowles, Crowell-Davis 2003. AJVR.
What was the difference between cats with relatives who were present in the colony for 7 months and cats with relatives who were present in the colony for 76 months?
of times relative was within 1 m and mean # of times nonrelative cat was within 1 m of focal cat was lower for cats who knew each other for 7 months vs cats who knew each other 76 months
Curtis, Knowles, Crowell-Davis 2003. AJVR.
What was the difference in the # of times a cat was within 1 m of the focal cat and # of times a cat was groomed by the focal cat between relative cats vs relative equivalent cats?
Relative cats were more likely to be within 1 m than relative equivalents; relatives were groomed significantly more likely than relative equivalents
Curtis, Knowles, Crowell-Davis 2003. AJVR.
How much more frequent was the mean # of grooming events with a relative cat than with relative equivalent?
6.3 times
Curtis, Knowles, Crowell-Davis 2003. AJVR.
What was the commonality in all 6 of the cats who groomed relatives more than non-relatives?
They were all from groups in which the mother was present in the colony