preventing,gum,disease,in,dogs,and,maintaining,good,oral,care
Read More..
Cluck Click! Training Chickens Reveals Their Intelligence
Teaching a trick to a chicken increases beliefs that chickens are intelligent and can feel emotions.
Photo: Gillian Holliday (Shutterstock.com).
Read More..
Learning how to train chickens changes student’s attitudes towards them, according to a new study by Susan Hazel, Lisel O’Dwyer (both University of Adelaide) and Terry Ryan (Legacy Canine). The chickens were trained to do a specific task (such as pecking on a red but not green circle) in order to get food. Survey responses before and after the class show more positive attitudes after the clicker-training session.
Lead author Susan Hazel told me in an email, “I believe that the main reason for the students’ change in attitudes to chickens was that they realized chickens are smarter than they thought (they learn the colour discrimination tasks very fast) and also when you work with the different chickens you see their personalities.”
“Some chickens are fast and other chickens still learn quickly but just respond more slowly,” said Dr. Hazel. “It wasn’t so much of a surprise that students were more likely to believe that chickens were intelligent, are easy to teach tricks to, and that they have individual personalities. It was more surprising that this carried over to students more likely to believe chickens could experience boredom, happiness, and frustration.”
Some of the differences are quite striking. Before the class, only 7% of students thought it would be easy to teach tricks to a chicken, but after the class this went up to 61%. Beforehand, 49% thought chickens are intelligent, but afterwards 77% agreed. Most of the students thought chickens had individual personalities before the class (84%), but this went up to 95% after. There were some gender differences, including that women gave higher ratings than men for chicken intelligence.
Each year the chickens are named according to a theme. This time it was members of the Royal family, and the brightest chicken was one called Margaret. Students had a clicker attached to the handle of a scoop containing chicken food. When the chicken got something right, the trainer pressed the clicker (making a sound to signal to the chicken they did the right thing) and then let the chicken eat from the scoop.
The practical class lasted for 2 hours and included time training chickens and other activities. Chickens were chosen because they are easy to care for and handle in the class – and they are unforgiving of their trainer’s mistakes. The class used a technique called shaping which involves rewarding closer and closer approximations of a task to reach the final behaviour. Students worked in pairs to practice shaping on each other before training the chickens.
The class was taught to small groups of students each week over an 8 week period. The specific task that chickens were taught varied over time depending on what they already knew; for example initially they were taught to peck a circle, and later to discriminate between a red and a green or yellow circle. Students had up to three sessions to teach their chicken what to do; each session was 5 sets of 45 seconds each.
94 students completed all of the before and after survey questions. The practical was part of a class in Principles in Animal Behaviour, Welfare and Ethics taken by students reading for a BSc in Animal Science or Veterinary Bioscience. It turned out to be an excellent way to teach them about force free training.
Dr. Hazel told me, “The other stand-out has been how much students learn about training animals… Rather than saying ‘my chicken was stupid’ they now say ‘my reflexes were too slow’ and I think from chats with students in their second year that this translates to other animals they go on and train, like dogs.”
One of the neat things about this paper is that it does double-duty as both a research study of the effects of learning to train chickens on beliefs about them, and as a model of how to run such a practical class for students. The details of how the class was run are included in the paper, and are based on a chicken workshop run by Terry Ryan in South Australia in 2012.
Students were taking a lecture course alongside the clicker training practical. It’s possible that students who took the practical later in the term were also influenced by their greater knowledge; however no such patterns were detected in the data.
This study shows learning to train an animal leads to more positive attitudes towards it. The change in views was also apparent from student comments. One said, “I never thought that chickens would be intelligent enough and learn quite so quickly.”
Some dog trainers attend chicken-training workshops to improve their skills. Have you ever trained a chicken?
Reference
Hazel, S., ODwyer, L., & Ryan, T. (2015). “Chickens Are a Lot Smarter than I Originally Thought”: Changes in Student Attitudes to Chickens Following a Chicken Training Class Animals, 5 (3), 821-837 DOI: 10.3390/ani5030386Photo: Gillian Holliday (Shutterstock.com).
You might also like:
Where do people get information about dogtraining?
What do young children learn from pets?
Describing dog training: Weasel words or clear descriptions?
Where do people get information about dogtraining?
What do young children learn from pets?
Describing dog training: Weasel words or clear descriptions?
Diabetes Alert Dogs
 |
| Photo: Mila Atkovska / Shutterstock |
Can dogs be trained to alert diabetics when their blood sugar levels fall too low or too high? A new study by Nicola Rooney (University of Bristol) et al investigates the success of just such a program.
Medical Detection Dogs is a charity in the UK that trains dogs to detect disease. For example, they are investigating whether it is possible to train dogs to help with the early diagnosis of cancer, such as detecting prostate cancer from urine samples. They have bedbug detection dogs, who raise money to support the charity, which is reliant on public donations. And they also have medical alert dogs, trained to alert diabetics when their blood sugar becomes dangerously low.
Medical Detection Dogs is a charity in the UK that trains dogs to detect disease. For example, they are investigating whether it is possible to train dogs to help with the early diagnosis of cancer, such as detecting prostate cancer from urine samples. They have bedbug detection dogs, who raise money to support the charity, which is reliant on public donations. And they also have medical alert dogs, trained to alert diabetics when their blood sugar becomes dangerously low.
Type 1 diabetes is a serious medical condition in which the pancreas is not able to produce enough insulin. Consequently, there is not enough insulin to get sugar into the cells. The symptoms include increased thirst, hunger, fatigue and blurred vision, as well as many complications that can be life-threatening. People with type 1 diabetes have to monitor their blood sugar levels frequently to ensure they don’t suffer from blood sugar that is too low or too high.
The charity has trained a number of dogs to alert when their owner is at risk of becoming hypoglycaemic (low blood sugar). Many of them are also able to detect hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar), though this is not trained until after the hypoglycaemia detection training is complete.
The dogs wear a high-visibility red jacket that identifies them as medical alert dogs. While the most common breed is Labrador Retriever, other breeds include Golden Retriever, Poodle, Labradoodle, Cocker Spaniel, and a Yorkshire Terrier. Dogs that are trained by the charity typically go their owner at about eighteen months of age.
Seventeen owners of hypoglycaemia alert dogs took part in the research. Nine of the dogs had completed their training, while the remainder were at an advanced stage. Nine of the dogs (a different subset) were trained by the charity and placed with their owners, while the other dogs already lived with their owners and were subsequently trained. The alert behaviour might involve jumping up, licking, nudging, barking and/or staring.
The study asked clients to record occasions when the dog alerted them and whether or not this was accurate. They answered a questionnaire about their experiences, provided data from blood samples, and allowed the researchers to access their medical records so that pre- and post-dog results could be compared. The full dataset was available for ten clients.
All of the people said since they got the dog there was a reduction in at least one of low blood sugar, becoming unconscious, or having to call a paramedic. The majority agreed that “The dog has enhanced my quality of life” and “I am totally satisfied with my dog.” This shows the dogs have made a big difference to their owners lives.
Comparing blood tests to alert episodes showed that almost all of the dogs successfully identified when blood sugar was out of the normal range. In almost all cases, there was a significant change in glucose levels after they acquired the dog.
The people who have these dogs all have what is known as “brittle” diabetes, in other words it is unstable. The researchers say “their present Quality of Life and Wellbeing are comparable to other populations of non-dog users living with Type I diabetes. This suggests that the benefits of alert-dog ownership reported here have improved the clients’ life quality to levels comparable to the general Type I diabetes population.” This is a huge achievement, and it is beneficial to the individual as well as to society since it will result in lower emergency medical costs.
Most of the owners showed high levels of trust in their dog (remember that some dogs had not quite completed their training yet). Some liked the attention their dogs brought, while others were less keen on it.
The data showed there were differences in the dogs’ detection abilities, and future research is needed to investigate the reasons for this, such as whether some dogs are naturally better at it than others, and whether record-keeping is also a factor.
The researchers also suggest that differences in training may play a role. Future research could investigate any differences between dogs raised by the charity and those that were raised by their owners. There may also be differences in owners’ abilities when it comes to on-going training and rewarding successful alerts, so future research could usefully focus on the relationship between client and dog.
This study shows the dogs have made a big difference to the lives of their owners. Medical Detection Dogs now also trains dogs for other medical alerts, including narcolepsy and nut allergy.
Have you seen a medical assistance dog at work?
Reference
Rooney NJ, Morant S, & Guest C (2013). Investigation into the value of trained glycaemia alert dogs to clients with type I diabetes. PloS one, 8 (8) PMID: 23950905
Grapefruit Seed Extract Alternative Medicine for Dogs and Cats
 |
| Safe to use as a dietary supplement, alternative medicine for most dogs and cats. |
In this article...
1. Grapefruit Seed Extract
2. Health Benefits
2. Health Benefits
3. Cautions
4. Side Effects
5. Drug Interactions
6. Administration and Dosage
6. Administration and Dosage
1.0 Grapefruit Seed Extract (GSE)
Grapefruit is a citrus fruit. Extract from the seeds of the grapefruit are valued for their medicinal qualities. The benefits of Grapefruit Seed Extract (GSE) were first noted in 1972 by physicist Dr. Jacob Harich who observed its broad spectrum use as an antibacterial and antiviral remedy. You can read more about Dr. Jacob Harich and the history of GSE here.
University of Georgia researchers found that GSE is an effective antiviral, anti-fungal and anti-parasitic agent for fighting many viral and bacterial infections, including E. coli.
Grapefruit seeds contain active ingredients that are:
- Anti-bacterial;
- Anti-fungal;
- Anti-inflammatory;
- Anti-microbial;
- Anti-parasitic and more.
2.0 Health Benefits - a partial list..
Ingested Uses
- Atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries);
- Bacteria;
- GSE has been proven to fight 800 bacterial and viral strains;
- Example uses;
- Diarrhea;
- Dental care - preventing and treating gingivitis;
- Ear infections;
- Nasal rinse;
- Yeast infections - candida;
- etc.
- Cancer;
- Digestive issues due to eczema;
- Read More..
Tail wagging
All animals communicate with energy and body language, and it’s easy to tell just from body language whether they’re fearful or aggressive. But, beyond body language, for many animals there are three important body parts with which they communicate.
Animals’ primary methods of communicating are through eye contact, their ear position, and their tails.
When an animal is being defensive or aggressive, it will make eye contact to tell whatever it’s facing to back off. When an animal is alert to danger, its ears will stand straight up. But the most important thing to watch is the tail.
A tail wag is not always friendly
When a cat wags its tail, it’s not being friendly. Its saying, “Watch out, because I’m going to attack.” When a squirrel wiggles its tail, it’s saying, “I’m big and I’m threatening, so stay away.”
When a dog wags its tail, though, it could be saying a lot of things, depending on how it’s wagging. And, in fact, a dog’s tail is probably one of the most expressive parts of its body, just ahead of its ears.
This is why docking a dog’s tail or cropping its ears hinders the dogs ability to communicate effectively. These could be compared to cutting out a human’s tongue and removing their vocal cords. When it comes to communicating with body language, those ears and tail are a major way that our dogs speak to each other — and to us.
Different tail positions indicate different things
Think of a dog’s tail as the turn-indicator lever in your car. It has a natural position, and it has two other positions that indicate different things. When a dog’s tail is in its natural position, it indicates that the dog is calm and happy — though position varies with breed. Some dogs have tails that naturally hang down behind their legs, while others have tails that curl up over their backs. When the tail is in that natural position and not moving side-to-side, it’s telling you, “I’m happy. Everything’s cool.”
When the tail moves up or down
There are two positions a dog’s tail can move to without moving side-to-side: up or down. When a dog’s tail moves up, it means that the dog is becoming more assertive or dominant. It’s like raising a flag, and the message it’s sending is this: “I’m the dog in charge here.” When the tail moves down, it’s sending the opposite message: “You’re the dog in charge here.” And if a dog’s tail curls between its legs, it’s sending the message, “I’m harmless. Don’t hurt me. I submit.”
A raised tail isn’t necessarily aggressive but a lowered tail is always submissive.
When the tail moves side-to-side
This brings us to that wagging bit, when a dog moves its tail from side-to-side. Now, the natural assumption is that a dog wagging its tail is happy, but that isn’t necessarily true. As science has shown, it really all depends on how fast the tail is moving, and to which side it shows a bias.
If the tail is moving more strongly to the dog’s right, then that dog is showing positive emotions, like excitement or interest. But if it’s moving more to the left, it’s showing negative emotions, like anxiety, fear, or aggression. From a biological standpoint, this makes sense. That’s because in many animals, including dogs and humans, the left side of the brain deals with positive behaviors while the right deals with the negative. Since each side of the brain controls the opposite side of the body, this leads to a difference in meaning exhibited by the bias of the wag.
By the way, this wiring of the sides of the brain doesn’t change between people or animals that are right or left handed/pawed.
Context is key
So put it all together, and we get this. If a dog’s tail is mostly wagging to their right and is at or lower than its normal position, then the dog is saying, “Hey, I’m happy. You’re the boss. It’s all good.” But if the tail is wagging to the left, and especially if it’s at or higher than its normal position, then the dog is saying, “Bring it. I’m in charge here.”
Speed plays a role
The one other factor to consider is the speed of the wag. The faster the tail is moving, the higher the positive or negative energy. Really fast and low to the dog’s right, really submissive dog. Really fast and high to the left, walk away. At its most extreme, the tail can appear to be vibrating instead of wagging. This is definitely the dog to avoid.
No matter the position, though, a slow moving tail indicates a calm and curious dog, and that’s the dog you can safely approach and get to know better.
NB: its the dogs right or the dogs left.
Interaction with humans
A study by Monique Udell and her team, from the
Udell and her team carried out two experiments comparing the performance of pet domestic dogs, shelter dogs and wolves by giving the animals the opportunity to beg for food, from either an attentive person or from a person unable to see the animal.
They wanted to know whether the rearing and living environment of the animal (shelter or human home), or the species itself (dog or wolf), had the greater impact on the animals performance.
They showed, for the first time that wolves, like domestic dogs, are capable of begging successfully for food by approaching the attentive human.
This demonstrates that both dogs and wolves have the capacity to behave, observe and respond to a humans attention.
In addition, both wolves and pet dogs were able to rapidly improve their performance with practice.
The authors also found that dogs were not sensitive to all visual cues of a humans attention in the same way.
In particular, dogs from a home environment rather than a shelter were more sensitive to stimuli predicting attentive humans. Those dogs with less regular exposure to humans did not perform and responded as well.
Animals Pets and Vermin
What do animals mean to you and what role do they play in your life? These and related questions were recently asked of ordinary people by the Mass Observation Project in the UK, and the results, in a paper by Alison Sealey and Nickie Charles, are fascinating.
Since 1937, the Mass Observation Projecthas been collecting information from ordinary people about life in Britain. Set up with the idea of creating “an anthropology of ourselves,” data collection continued until the early 50s when it stopped, and then resumed in the 1980s. Now, over 500 people are on the panel, and respond to open-ended questions three times a year. Researchers can commission questions, which is how this particular study came about. (If you live in the UK and are interested in Mass Observation, you can keep a one-day diary on Monday 12th May).
“I consider rats to be vermin as I hate everything about them!”
Read More..
 |
| Photo: pjmorley / Shutterstock |
Since 1937, the Mass Observation Projecthas been collecting information from ordinary people about life in Britain. Set up with the idea of creating “an anthropology of ourselves,” data collection continued until the early 50s when it stopped, and then resumed in the 1980s. Now, over 500 people are on the panel, and respond to open-ended questions three times a year. Researchers can commission questions, which is how this particular study came about. (If you live in the UK and are interested in Mass Observation, you can keep a one-day diary on Monday 12th May).
Sealey and Charles asked a number of questions about the role of animals in people’s everyday lives. 249 people replied and, while all responses were analyzed, the 103 responses that were sent in by email were analyzed electronically. Corpus linguistics is a type of analysis that looks at large text datasets and investigates things like which words tend to occur in close proximity to each other.
Some people wrote extensive answers, and the corpus was almost 182,000 words. There were many participants who did some linguistic work around the labels that were used in the study, such as defining ‘animals’ as pets in some cases, or even as specific types of pets, as with one person who said, “My relationship with animals is better than it is with humans. I say animals, I suppose I mean cats really.”
Broad category labels, such as mammal and amphibian, were not used very often. Instead, people tended to refer to specific types of animal. For example, the word amphibian appeared just once in the corpus, but frog (in the singular or plural form) was used 30 times. Perhaps not surprisingly, dog(s) and cat(s) were the most commonly used words for types of animals.
Insect lovers should know that the word insect appeared rarely. Although the researchers say one possibility is that insects have little impact on people, another explanation is that, for most people, the category ‘animal’ does not really include insects. Perhaps ‘insect’ is a category equivalent to ‘animal’. We are talking, of course, about people’s everyday knowledge constructs, not about official scientific nomenclature.
One aspect of the results that we found of particular interest relates to use of the words vermin and pets. Respondents were asked, “Do you consider any animals to be vermin?” Perhaps not surprisingly given the phrasing of the question, the word ‘consider’ often featured in people’s responses. Some people accepted the category of vermin. For example,
“I consider rats to be vermin as I hate everything about them!”
or, “I would consider some animals as vermin, particular rats, mice, cockroaches.”
Some responses were very specific, such as “The mice in the piano are vermin.” So they refer not to mice in general, but to a very particular set of mice. (We are feeling bad for the piano).
Other participants were less accepting of the term, or did not apply it in a global way, e.g.
“I consider wild rats to be vermin, though tame rats are quite lovely.”
“I don’t consider most animals to be vermin as they are all just trying to survive”.
One of the interesting things about how people referred to pets is that they didn’t often use the word ‘own’. Instead they were much more likely to say ‘have’, e.g. “We have a pet cat and that’s about it.” Comments – sometimes negative – were often made about other people’s pets, and a look at the phrases that used the term ‘their pets’ reveals many comments that evaluate the human-animal bond. For example,
“It may give you an idea of how ridiculously fond some people get of their pets!”
“For some people their pets are their only friends”
“people abroad sometimes seem more reticent to take their pets to a vet.”
The study also looked at whether people were more likely to refer to particular types of animals in the plural or singular. For example ‘puppy’ and ‘kitten’ were more often singular, but ‘gerbils’ and ‘hamsters’ were more often plural. This may reflect people being more likely to have multiples of certain kinds of animals.
Some of the comments about the role of animals in people’s lives, particularly about them being in close relationships with people, were quite poignant. The responses show a range of experiences, from animals playing very little role (except as food), to being vitally important for companionship. It’s a useful reminder of the diversity of roles that animals play in our lives.
What do animals mean to you?
Reference
Sealey, A., & Charles, N. (2013). "What Do Animals Mean to You?": Naming and Relating to Nonhuman Animals Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 26 (4), 485-503 DOI: 10.2752/175303713X13795775535652?
