Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros




Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Animals (Basel) ; 13(23)2023 Nov 27.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38067014

RESUMEN

Lateralised behavioural responses to environmental stressors have become more frequently used as indicators of social welfare in animals. These lateralised behavioural responses are under the control of asymmetrical brain functions as part of the primary functions of most vertebrates and assist in primary social and survival functions. Lateralised behavioural responses originating from the left hemisphere are responsible for processing familiar conditions, while the right hemisphere is responsible for responding to novel stimuli in the environment. The forced lateralisation and side preference tests have been used to determine the visual lateralised behavioural responses in livestock to environmental stressors. Limb preference during movement has also been used to determine motor lateralisation. Although behavioural investigations in livestock have recorded lateralised behavioural responses to environmental stressors, there are still limitations in the implication of lateralisation to other conditions, such as restraint and invasive procedures. Thus, it is important to have a non-invasive measure for these lateralised behavioural responses. Recently, lateralised behavioural responses have been correlated with the use of infrared temperature of external body surfaces, such as the eyes and coronary bands of limbs. This review summarised the different forms of the lateralised behavioural responses in livestock, especially cattle and horses, to environmental stressors, and the association between these responses and the relevant external body surfaces' infrared temperature, with the purpose of improving the use of non-invasive measures in assessing welfare conditions in animals. The combination of the lateralised behavioural responses and infrared temperature of external body surfaces to environmental stressors could improve the assessment strategies of welfare conditions and the related additional husbandry interventions that could be applied to improve the welfare of farm animals.

2.
Animals (Basel) ; 13(2)2023 Jan 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36670764

RESUMEN

Studies show that horses express favoritism through shared proximity and time and demonstrate unique affiliative behaviors such as allogrooming (mutual scratching) with favorite conspecifics. Allogrooming also occurs more frequently during stress and has been observed to occur more frequently in domestic herds than feral. The role of partner preference, lateralization, and duration of allogrooming as measures of social bonding has remained unclear. The present study looked at two socially stable herds of mares (n = 85, n = 115) to determine the frequency, duration, visual field of view and partner preference during allogrooming in both pasture settings (low stress) and confined settings (higher stress). One hundred and fifty-three videos for both herds were coded for allogrooming behaviors with 6.86 h recorded in confined conditions and 31.9 h in pasture settings. Six allogrooming sessions were observed in the pasture setting with an average duration of 163.11 s. In confined settings, a total of 118 allogrooming sessions were observed with an average duration of 40.98 s. Significant (p < 0.01) differences were found between settings for duration (s), number of allogrooming pairs, and frequency of allogrooming (per min) for each herd. All observed allogrooming sessions involved pairs of favored conspecifics (one partner per horse). The current study suggests that horses may have friendships that can be observed through the demonstration of specific affiliative behaviors during times of stress with more frequent, but shorter affiliative interactions with preferred partners during times of stress. This context suggests that horses adhere to the "tend and befriend" principles of friendship in animals.

3.
Animals (Basel) ; 12(15)2022 Aug 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35953965

RESUMEN

The nomenclature used to describe animals working in roles supporting people can be confusing. The same term may be used to describe different roles, or two terms may mean the same thing. This confusion is evident among researchers, practitioners, and end users. Because certain animal roles are provided with legal protections and/or government-funding support in some jurisdictions, it is necessary to clearly define the existing terms to avoid confusion. The aim of this paper is to provide operationalized definitions for nine terms, which would be useful in many world regions: "assistance animal", "companion animal", "educational/school support animal", "emotional support animal", "facility animal", "service animal", "skilled companion animal", "therapy animal", and "visiting/visitation animal". At the International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ) conferences in 2018 and 2020, over 100 delegates participated in workshops to define these terms, many of whom co-authored this paper. Through an iterative process, we have defined the nine terms and explained how they differ from each other. We recommend phasing out two terms (i.e., "skilled companion animal" and "service animal") due to overlap with other terms that could potentially exacerbate confusion. The implications for several regions of the world are discussed.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA