Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 22 (1989) 191-214 191

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - - Printed in The Netherlands

Clinical E t h o l o g y in Food A n i m a l P r a c t i c e

U.A. LUESCHER, R.M. FRIENDSHIP, K.D. LISSEMORE and D.B. McKEOWN

Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph,
Ont. NIG 2W1 (Canada)

ABSTRACT

Luescher, U.A., Friendship, R.M., Lissemore, K.D. and McKeown, D.B., 1989. Clinical ethology
in food animal practice. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 22: 191-214.

The relationships between ethology and veterinary medicine, and clinical ethology and clinical
veterinary practice, are being discussed. Clinical veterinary ethology is defined as the science
occupied with the diagnosis and treatment of primary behavior disorders, including behavioral
causes for clinical disease and sub-optimal performance. For discussion of behavior problems,
these are categorized into those with direct economic impact, those with indirect economic impact
and those without economic impact. Examples for each category are reviewed. Problems with
direct economic impact are flank biting, tail and ear biting, group aggression, pen fouling and
savaging of piglets by the dam in swine; and non-nutritive sucking, urine drinking, the bu|ler steer
syndrome, milk sucking, and behavior contributing to lesions, teat injury and mastitis in bovids.
Behavior problems with indirect economic impact include restlessness, mutual massaging, copro-
phagia and stereotypies such as bar biting in swine; preputial sucking and urine drinking in swine
and bovids; and object and mutual licking, abnormal motor patterns, extended lying down inten-
sions and tongue rolling in bovids. Abnormal behavior without economic impact is discussed in
terms of welfare implications. Practical recommendations are made concerning the integration of
behavior observations into a herd health program and regarding the solution of behavior problems.
It is concluded that clinical ethology makes a significant contribution to veterinary practice, es-
pecially to herd health programs. More information is needed, though, especially relative to: (1)
the epidemiology of behavior problems; (2) the economic effects of problems and their treatment;
(3) the efficacy of treatments.

INTRODUCTION

The sciences of ethology and veterinary medicine established formal con-

tacts, and entered into a relationship of mutual respect and interest, when in
1965 the Society of Veterinary Ethology was formed. The society serves the
purpose of attracting scientists with common interests from various disciplines
and of promoting the development of veterinary ethology (Fox, 1967 ). In spite
of the activities of this society and its members, ethology has not yet become

0168-1591/89/$03.50 © 1989 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

192

a widely accepted branch of veterinary medicine. One of the many reasons for
this might be its more integrative and less analytical character compared to
the more traditional areas of veterinary science such as pharmacology or ge-
netics, etc.
Many scientists have spoken for the integration of applied ethology into the
veterinary teaching program (e.g., Fox, 1967; Houpt, 1976; Voith, 1984; Broom,
1987 ). Today, ethology is included in the curriculum at several veterinary col-
leges (Stricklin, 1983 ) and into various veterinary texts (e.g., Fraser and Mays,
1986; Leman et al., 1986). The following discussion will focus on some of the
reasons for this development.
There is an intimate relationship between physiology and behavior, in that
many of the regulatory mechanisms of an organism necessary to maintain
homeostasis and grant normal development or reproduction, imply behavior
(Tschanz, 1982). Interference with normal behavior can, therefore, also be
expected to hamper important physiological functions. This has indeed been
shown for the courting behavior in boars which plays a significant role in fer-
tility and fecundity of the sow (Hemsworth, 1978), and the periparturient be-
havior of the sow influencing the speed and ease of piglet births (Vestergaard
and Hansen, 1984). A veterinarian needs to know about such complex inter-
actions between behavior and physiology in order to successfully solve cases of
sub-optimal herd performance.
Moreover, behavior has a complex relationship to clinical disease; disease
obviously affects behavior (e.g., Hart, 1985), but the reverse may be true as
well. For example, Madec (1982) suggested that prolonged sitting of sows in
crates may be one reason for frequent urinary tract infection and Sanford
(1982) suggested that impairment of social thermoregulation in pregnant sows
may cause abortions. Some aberrant behavior, such as stereotypic behavior,
must be considered a disease in itself, since it implies severe pathophysiological
changes in the affected animal (Dantzer, 1985). Behavior, in some instances,
can also be an important vector in disease transmission (Visnjakow and Geor-
giev, 1972).
With the development of preventive veterinary medicine and herd health,
knowledge of behavior gains increasing importance. A herd health approach is
performance rather than disease oriented. Many economically important per-
formance traits, however, are directly related to behavior. Fertility of dairy
cows, for instance, depends on the display of estrus behavior (Hurnik, 1987);
Productivity of sows necessitates appropriate maternal behavior (Fraser, 1977);
and rate of gain in turkey poults depends on their ability and motivation to
ingest the provided feed (Lewis and Hurnik, 1979). Impairment of behavior
such as mentioned above obviously results in reduction of performance and,
thus, becomes clinically relevant.
Finally, behavior problems are a frequent cause for veterinary consultations,
especially in companion animals (McKeown and Luescher, 1988), but also in
 193

farm animals (Luescher and McKeown, 1987). Their prevalence and impor-
tance require that the practicing veterinarians have a basic knowledge of eth-
ological principles in order to provide a satisfactory service to their clients.

A DESCRIPTION OF CLINICALVETERINARYETHOLOGY

Ethology is an essential component of veterinary science, since the latter

encompasses all aspects of the lives of animals (Broom, 1987). Similarly, clin-
ical ethology has to be regarded as an integral part of clinical veterinary med-
icine. Indeed, the close relationship between behavior, performance and dis-
ease, and the abundance of behavior problems demands the delineation and
development of this discipline.
The first to coin the term "clinical veterinary ethology" was Littlejohn
(1969), who recognized the close and long-standing association between ani-
mal behavior and veterinary diagnosis. He felt that ethology could make a
significant contribution to clinical veterinary medicine by quantitatively de-
scribing behavioral symptoms of disease. Even today, clinical ethology is mostly
interpreted as the science occupied with the analysis of behavioral signs of"
disease, i.e., with behavior reflecting disease (Fraser, 1984 ). However, this ap-
proach to clinical ethology makes little use of the knowledge to the basic prin-
ciples of behavior, normal and abnormal, and remains largely descriptive. In
our minds, the area in which ethology has most to offer to veterinary medicine
is in the analyses and resolution of purely behavioral disorders, and of disease
caused by behavior. We therefore propose to re-define clinical veterinary eth-
ology as the science occupied with the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of
primary behavior disorders (Fraser, 1984 ), including behavioral causes of clin-
ical disease and sub-optimal performance.
Although this view had earlier been held by others (e.g., Fox, 1967 ), clinical
ethology, as defined here, has only recently been developed, and almost exclu-
sively for companion animals and horses. Most texts on applied ethology, even
those intended specifically for veterinary use, largely neglect the clinical treat-
ment of behavior disorders in food-producing animals. There is the rare excep-
tion, though, e.g., the chapter by Sambraus (1985a) in a recent edition of World
Animal Science, Series A, and an older text by Straiton (1967).
There must be good reasons for the omission of clinical ethology applied to
food-producing animals from most texts. Some of these are mentioned below
and partially discussed in subsequent sections.
(1) There is a lack of information regarding most primary behavior prob-
lems in food animals. Analysis of the causes of such problems are largely miss-
ing. Estimates of the economic impact of the problems, and the feasibility of
their treatments and data that would allow accurate prognosis are generally
not available.
(2) There is a small number of people working in this field. A recent survey
194

(Wright, 1986) listed only two behavior scientists working in this field, only
one of them being a veterinarian. Although this survey cannot be considered
complete, the number is certainly small.
(3) The individual animal approach is ill-suited for dealing with behavior
problems in farm livestock. At a scientific level, an epidemiological approach
is necessary or desirable (Ewbank, 1986), possibly in tandem with a laboratory
experiment (Webster, 1983 ). At the practical level, problems have to be dealt
with on a herd basis (Luescher and McKeown, 1987).
The apparent lack of reliable data and the as yet limited applicability of
behavior science in food animal practice contributes, as we believe, to the mea-
ger recognition this discipline has among veterinarians. This paper is written
to draw attention to this deficit and to promote the development of clinical
veterinary ethology in food animals.

CATEGORIZATIONOF BEHAVIORPROBLEMS

Behavior problems have been categorized in various ways. Brummer (1978)

presented a very useful taxonomy dividing abnormal behavior according to its
origin into that which is symptomatic of disease, that which is caused by con-
genital or acquired organ defects and, lastly, that without organic cause. The
latter group he further divided into endogenous and exogenous or reactive (re-
sponse to the environment) behavior abnormalities. Wood-Gush et al. (1975)
grouped abnormal behaviors according to their underlying cause. Other au-
thors classified behavior abnormalities or problems according to their pheno-
typical expressions (Wiepkema, 1983), their original functional context
(Fraser, 1985), or their obviousness and economic impact (Ewbank, 1973).
We recognize that for successful treatment of behavior problems, a categori-
zation similar to the one offered by Brummer (1978) is most useful. For the
purpose of this article, however, a different classification will be used, dividing
behavior problems according to their economic impact as follows: (a) with
direct economic impact; (b) with indirect economic impact; (c) without ap-
parent economic impact.
This categorization is relevant in a practical context. In most cases, veteri-
nary treatment is requested or justified on economic grounds. It is, therefore,
important that the client knows about the financial impact of a particular be-
havior problem as well as about other reasons for treatment, e.g., animal wel-
fare considerations. Furthermore, the different categories exemplify different
kinds of clinical approaches and, therefore, are of different importance for the
different types of veterinary services, i.e., emergency vs. herd health practice.
Moreover, this categorization provides a useful structure for a discussion of
abnormal behavior.
 195

BEHAVIORPROBLEMS WITH DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT

Most producers are concerned about behavior problems only if they have an
obvious direct economic impact. Such problems are not uncommon and may
be very costly. Nevertheless, for most of them, exact figures regarding preva-
lence and economic significance are missing.

(1) Snout rubbing, flank sucking and flank biting in pigs

Pigs (usually weanling pigs) have been reported to massage each other's
flank or lower rib cage with vertical movements of the nose (Allison, 1976).
This behavior abnormality is considered to derive from frustrated suckling
behavior (van Putten and Dammers, 1976). Our own observations indicate
that the incidence of flank sucking appears to be significantly greater in piglets
that are weaned before 20 days of age compared to piglets weaned at a later
age. Algers (1984) observed an influence of weaning age on frequency of flank
sucking, but only when piglets were housed in cages. This behavior can escalate
to actual flank biting and persist up to slaughter weight. It often results in
various degrees of distress and damage to the victim (Allison, 1976), and is
associated with reduced growth of both the victims and the instigators (Fraser,
1978). Prevention involves improvement of the climatic environment, wean-
ing the piglets at an older age, weaning them into an enriched environment
(Algers, 1984) and housing the weaner pigs by litter rather than in large groups.
Treatments such as physical separation of pigs, keeping the pigs in the dark,
or even inserting rings into their noses (Allison, 1976), merely treat the symp-
toms and are not satisfactory long-term solutions.

(2) Tail biting in grower and finisher pigs

No other behavior problem in farm animals has stimulated both the interest
and ingenuity of researchers as much as tail biting in pigs. A large number of
possible causes have resulted in a similarly large number of suggested treat-
ments, such as manganese supplementation, a higher protein ration and some
as far fetched as spraying the pigs with perfume (von Cramon, 1978).
Tail biting begins as a harmless nibbling of the tail, presumably a re-directed
investigative behavior ( Steiger and Arnold, 1976), and is well tolerated by the
target animal. Only in a later stage, once the tail is injured and blood is drawn,
does it involve rigorous attacks on the tails of the victims (van Putten, 1969 ).
This latter stage may be an expression of predatory aggression and appetite
for blood (Fraser, 1987).
It is known that males are more prone to the condition than females (about
twice as common in males, Penny et al., 1981) and that there is a seasonal
influence on the prevalence of tail biting (Penny and Hill, 1974). Suggested
196

causes of tail biting include physical environment (percentage of slatted area

in pen, reduced feeder space, lack of straw), climatic environment (tempera-
ture stress, manure gases), nutrition (dietary value, availability, structure),
social factors (large group size, high stocking density) and concomitant dis-
ease (Smith and Penny, 1986). Thus, the list of predisposing factors includes
all conditions which impose stress on the animals and/or do not provide a more
suitable target object for chewing (van Putten, 1969).
Clinical experience, as well as experimental observations in early weaned
piglets (van Putten and Dammers, 1976; Algers, 1984) suggest that the prob-
lem is initially caused by the conditions at weaning, although lesions are sel-
dom observed at that stage. Severe lesions may first appear in the grower barn,
even if pigs are housed in an acceptable environment and straw bedding is
provided. This often makes the diagnosis of the cause of tail biting very difficult.
Clinical sequelae of tail biting, such as reduced growth, hind leg paralysis
and death, result in significant economic losses. For the U.S.A., the financial
loss due to carcass condemnation in one year totaled $5.6 million. To this should
be added the cost due to a reduction in growth rate of~ 10-15% (Penny, 1982 ).
Control of tail biting in grower or finisher pigs must include the assessment
and correction of all the above-mentioned possible causal factors in the grower
or finisher barn as well as in the nursery. Tail docking, as a preventive measure,
and separation of the biters from the group may be necessary, but are merely
symptomatic treatments.

(3) Ear biting

Ear biting is a re-directed activity similar to tail biting, but involves chewing
and biting of the tip or the base of the ears of pen mates. It may be performed
as a stereotypy, alternating with vacuum chewing. In spite of some epidemiol-
ogical differences (Penny and Hill, 1974), ear biting is generally precipitated
by the same factors as tail biting. The incidence appears to have increased since
producers have begun to routinely dock tails. Like tail biting, ear biting may
well have its origin in the nursery and persist later in spite of adequate envi-
ronmental conditions, and possibly straw bedding, in the grower barn. In rare
cases, this behavior can have devastating economic effects due to ear loss and
death of affected pigs. The treatment is the same as for tail biting. Particular
attention should be paid to any factors contributing to ear lesions, which might
in turn trigger ear biting, such as fighting after re-grouping, fighting over the
waterers or ear mange infestation (Straiton, 1967).

(4) Group aggression in fattening pigs towards one member of the group

One pig in the pen, usually neither the smallest nor the largest, is singled
out and then repeatedly attacked either by one pig at a time or by the whole
 197

group at once. The victim is quickly exhausted and if not removed in time, dies.
Post-mortem examination reveals no pathological changes other than super-
ficial skin lesions. Once the victim is dead or removed, the group often turns
towards another group member. The condition has been observed in pens with
good footing, often with litter, ample space and rather large groups. The inci-
dences always followed management procedures which induced a high state of
arousal such as cleaning out the pen, catching one pig out of the pen or, in one
case, playing with the pigs. The condition is generally rare and even in affected
herds usually occurs only sporadically, but in some cases the economic loss can
be significant, especially when finisher pigs are involved. Treatment is directed
towards reducing arousal by handling the pigs calmly and by keeping them in
smaller groups.

(5) Pen fouling by pigs on partially slatted or solid floor

Pigs are naturally clean animals. Although they are not programmed to
maintain one defecation site, when given the choice they defecate and urinate
away from their lying, feeding and drinking areas. Various factors have been
identified as influencing the pigs' choice of dunging site (Petherick, 1983 ). Pen
fouling occurs when pigs are too crowded, when the ambient temperature is
too high, or when the designs of the pen and/or the ventilation system are
faulty. Solid walls enclosing the lying area seem to be a particularly important
factor. Where fence partitions are used, pen fouling can usually be corrected
by installing solid pen partitions. Some clinical cases indicate that a fully slat-
ted floor and high stocking densities during the growing period can subse-
quently result in pen fouling in partially slatted or solid floor barns during the
finishing period. Weight gain and feed conversion may be adversely affected
by pen fouling (Petherick, 1983) and labor is increased.

(6) Savaging of piglets by the sow

Savaging usually involves new-born piglets. It is generally believed to occur

much more frequently in gilts than in older sows (Smith and Penny, 1986) and
gilts that savaged their first litters are usually good mothers with subsequent
litters, but some investigations do not confirm this (Lewis and Oakly, 1970).
Savaging attempts are not uncommon and may assume epidemic proportions
in newly formed herds with a large percentage of gilts (Smith and Penny, 1986).
According to our own experience, 50% of litters may be affected in such herds.
Sows inclined to savage are more restless before parturition than good moth-
ers (Hansen and Curtis, 1981 ). Possible causes for savaging are the unnatural
farrowing situation which prevents social isolation and nest building, climatic
stress, a cold concrete floor without bedding and human interference during
parturition. Lack of straw for nest building has also been suggested as a cause,
198

but provision of straw did not reduce pre-partum restlessness (Hansen and
Curtis, 1981 ) and was not successful in preventing savaging in practice. Un-
satisfactory rearing conditions of gilts may increase their tendency to savage
(Schouten, 1987). In rare cases, an imbalance in iodine metabolism may be
the underlying cause (Stockl et al., 1970). There are obvious differences in
incidence between different genetic strains. Some gilts seem to be behaviorally
immature for raising piglets when farrowing for the first time.
Control measures include the assessment and correction of stress factors,
improvement of management around farrowing, genetic selection and possibly
breeding the gilts later. The use of farrowing crates with solid sides to allow
for social isolation and to provide a degree of shelter for the sow is a promising
approach. If sows are given the choice, they prefer such crates over conven-
tional ones with bars.
Short-term treatment may include the immediate removal of the piglets dur-
ing parturition and returning them after parturition is over. Treatment with
tranquilizers may be successful (Symoens and van Gestel, 1972 ), but does not
address the causes of the condition.

(7) Non-nutritive sucking in veal calves

Veal calves kept on a liquid diet, which is consumed rapidly, suck various
parts of each other's body such as the scrotum, ears and prepuce (Sambraus,
1984), or inanimate objects (Kopp et al., 1986). The amount of sucking de-
pends on early sucking experience (de Wilt, 1985), on the method of feeding
(Szucs et al., 1983 ) and on the presence of effective releasing stimuli for suck-
ing (Mees and Metz, 1983). The behavior may have clinical sequelae (Groth,
1978). It is as yet unclear if it can develop into milk sucking as the animals
grow older (Grommers, 1979). Non-nutritive sucking is interpreted as re-di-
rected sucking (Kopp et al., 1986), resulting from frustration of the sucking
drive (Sambraus, 1984). More frequent meals (Mees and Metz, 1983) or pro-
vision of a pacifier (Kopp et al., 1986) increase the amount of non-nutritive
sucking, while it can be reduced by separating the calves from their dam at
birth and raising them on teat buckets (de Wilt, 1985), extending the feeding
period and increasing the effort involved in sucking by providing milk through
a rubber teat with a small orifice. Separation of the calves after feeding for 10-
20 min greatly reduces sucking on body parts of pen mates (Sambraus, 1984),
but this has to be considered a merely symptomatic treatment.

(8) Buller steer syndrome

In large groups of feedlot steers, a few members of the group may attract
others which will repeatedly mount them. The bullers, i.e., the mounted ani-
mals, may show decreased weight gain and even die, if not removed in time.
 199

Bullers are also less resistant to respiratory disease (Lincoln, 1983). Predis-
posing factors are conditions which impose stress on the animals, such as stormy
weather, crowding, large and unstable groups, changes in the group (Brower
and Kiracofe, 1978; Irwin et al., 1979) and boredom (Ulbrich, 1981). Other
contributing factors may be unique to the bullers themselves, such as hormonal
or metabolic abnormalities (which may be consequences rather than causes),
their behavior (standing to be mounted), pheromones, different hair color
(Brower and Kiracofe, 1978) or their apparent inability to integrate into the
social hierarchy of the group (Klemm et al., 1983). Implants (Irwin et al.,
1979), particularly if not applied properly (Lincoln, 1983), and phytohor-
mones (Pierson et al., 1976) are considered as causes as well.
The buller steer syndrome may result in significant economic losses. Surveys
in Colorado (Pierson et al., 1976) and Kansas (Brower and Kiracofe, 1978),
indicated that 2.9 and 2.2% of steers became bullers, and the loss per buller
was estimated at $6 and $23, respectively. To prevent the problem, the man-
agement and production system should be evaluated with regard to the above-
mentioned factors and corrected if found deficient. On a short-term basis, bul-
lers may be separated, their implant removed, or their odor masked with strong
smelling substances. Application of progesterone is also mentioned as symp-
tomatic treatment (Lincoln, 1983).

(9) Milk sucking in dairy cows

This undesirable behavior may be displayed either by a cow sucking the

udder of another cow, or more seldomly a cow sucking her own teats, resulting
in obvious economic loss to the farmer. In one survey, up to 50% of herds were
affected (Grommers, 1979 ) and up to 25% of cows were engaged in milk suck-
ing in some herds (Schluter et al., 1981 ), but generally the prevalence is as-
sumed to be much lower. Certain genotypes, especially Jersey cattle, seem to
be more susceptible to the condition (Peterse et al., 1978; Schluter et al., 1981;
Simonsen, 1983). Cows within a herd form steady pairs for unidirectional or
mutual sucking (Peterse et al., 1978; Grommers, 1979). The behavior may
derive from intersucking in calves and the ingestion of milk as well as the
reduction of intramammary pressure may act as reinforcers to maintain the
behavior. Milk sucking may be related to housing conditions (Schluter et al.,
1981 ) and in one study was associated with tongue rolling (Simonsen, 1983).
Sambraus (1985a) also lists deficiency symptoms, neurohormonal dysfunc-
tions and imitation as possible contributing factors. Clinical consequences of
the condition are seen as teat lesions, udder deformation and possibly mastitis
(Burmeister et al., 1981; Simonsen, 1983). Preliminary recommendations for
prevention include the early separation of the calves from their dam, feeding
the calves by nipple drinkers (Simonsen, 1983) and grouping calves together
at a later age (Grommers, 1979). Various surgical methods (e.g., Mellinger,
200

1980; Deja et al., 1982) and devices to be mounted on the cows' nose (Sam-
braus, 1985a) have been developed for symptomatic treatment of the condi-
tion. In light of the probable relationship of milk sucking to inadequate rearing
and housing systems, and its association with tongue rolling, such treatments
must be considered inadequate as long-term solutions.

(10) Behavior contributing to teat injury and/or mastitis in dairy cows

Housing conditions are a very important causative factor for environmental

mastitis (Klastrup et al., 1987), largely because of their influence on cow be-
havior. Poor design of tether systems and stalls can prevent cows from rising
and lying down normally (Groth, 1984) and thus promote teat injury (Ekesbo,
1978). Stalls which are too short may force the cows to lie on the edge of the
stall and thus exert pressure on their udder. Poor cubicle design in free stalls
can have similar effects (Kammer and Tschanz, 1975; Groth, 1985 ). Too short
a functional stall length (taking the type of tether system into account) and
stalls which are too narrow (Klastrup et al., 1987 ), too much freedom of move-
ment, the lack of partitions between cows, and any factors hampering rising
and lying down, such as slippery floors, may contribute significantly to the
infliction of teat injury on the neighboring cow and thus to an increased risk
of mastitis ( Groth, 1985).
A lack of bedding in tie stalls or cubicles, poor cubicle design, or overstocking
of a free stall barn with consequent shortage of cubicles may force cows to lie
on bare and possibly dirty concrete flooring (Wierenga, 1983), which is con-
trary to their species typical preference (Andreae and Papendieck, 1971 ). Lack
of bedding in the lying area has been shown to increase the risk of mastitis
(Ekesbo, 1966). Poor design of the stalls or cubicles, or improper position of
an electric cow trainer, may induce cows to defecate on their lying area and
thus increase contamination of the udder with feces.
For treatment, the causative factors have to be analyzed and corrected. Once
it is established that teat injuries a n d / o r mastitis are due to environmental
factors, surgical and medical treatment should only be used as supportive
measures as long as necessary, until changes in the housing environment are
effective. Such changes often concern small details in design and often can be
achieved at very low cost, rendering this approach very cost effective.

(11) Behavioral causes for injuries in dairy cows

Physical injuries in a high percentage of animals in a herd on the same an-

atomical location suggest that the animals' ability to behaviorally adapt to the
housing conditions has been exceeded (Tschanz, 1982). Injuries to brisket,
carpal joints, hocks, stifles, hips, claws and udder are far too common in mod-
ern dairy housing. They may result from physical contact with the housing
 201

system, as in the case with poorly designed cubicles (Kammer and Tschanz,
1975; Cermak, 1987 ) or tie stalls (Groth and Eichler, 1978) or from preventing
normal movement patterns or stances, such as species-typical rising or normal
body position when eating (Groth, 1985). Features of the barn environment
inducing such behavior abnormalities and injuries have been reviewed by var-
ious authors, e.g., Kammer and Tschanz, ( 1975 ), Fessl et al. (1984) and Groth
(1984, 1985 ). Analysis of the problem involves inspection of each individual
cow, assessing the physical properties of the housing system and behavior
observations.
This list of behavior problems with direct economic impact in farm animals
is by no means exhaustive. The few and tentative indications of economic sig-
nificance and recommendations for treatment reflect the scarcity of applicable
research in this area and the lack of clinical experience pertaining to the cor-
rection of these problems. For more information on how to practically ap-
proach a primary behavior problem, the reader is referred below to Practical
Considerations.

BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS WITH INDIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT

Aside from the obviously detrimental behavior problems discussed above,

there are a large number of abnormal behaviors which seem to have little or
no direct economic impact. Examples of such behaviors are given below. Since
they have no obvious detrimental consequences, they are largely ignored or, if
noted, are not regarded as warranting any action. However, abnormal behav-
ior, even if not resulting in economic loss, has to be understood as an indication
of deficiencies in management a n d / o r environment (Wiepkema, 1983 ). It can
be expected that these deficiencies, while inducing abnormal behavior, also
have concomitant effects on performance, efficiency and/or health. The main
clinical significance of abnormal behavior thus lies in its property as a standard
for the quality of the production system and in its value as an indicator of sub-
optimal performance. The relationship between the production system, behav-
ior (and disease), and health and performance is indicated in Fig. 1. The ad-
mittedly severe detrimental consequences of many behaviors discussed in the

DEFICIENCIES
IN
ENVR
I ONMENT,
~#lJ MANAGEMENT ~

ABNORMAL ~ POORHEALTH
BEHAVIOR = AND PERFORMANCE
(DISEASE)
Fig. 1. The relationship between production system, behavior and performance.
202

previous section could be considered merely coincidental and of secondary

importance.
This view is consistent with the approach taken towards disease in herd
health medicine. The herd health approach has been developed since it was
recognized that traditional treatment of disease did not achieve an expected
improvement in overall herd performance and profitability (Meek et al., 1975;
Blood et al., 1978). Thus, Blood et al. (1978) proposed the concept of herd
level targets of performance. This led to the further concept of a performance-
related diagnosis, expressing the deviation of the actual performance from the
target of that particular parameter in a given herd. This new concept of disease,
defined as the gap between actual herd performance and target values (Davies,
1985), includes the interaction of management, environment and disease in
the traditional sense (Stein, 1986). Disease in the traditional sense, then, as-
sumes a role as an indicator of deficiencies in environment and management.
Treatment of disease thus includes optimization of environmental and man-
agerial factors to achieve the desired improvement in performance and
profitability.
When extending this concept to behavior problems, abnormal behavior would
assume the same place as disease in the traditional sense. This implies that, at
least on a long-term basis, behavior problems do not call for symptomatic
treatment (such as amputations, tranquilizers or physical restriction). In-
stead, the veterinarian's attention should be directed towards the underlying
causes. It also implies that, generally, the changes in environment and man-
agement initiated to treat a behavior problem will also result in improvement
of performance and health. It follows that behavior observations are a powerful
tool to detect and correct deficiencies in the production system and improve
economic return, and should be part of any herd health program.
Most abnormal behaviors discussed in the previous section also have indi-
rect economic effects. However, in this section, all the behavior problems are
of special interest, which are not obviously detrimental, but are known or can
be assumed to have an indirect economic impact. A large number of re-directed
(i.e., behavior performed on unnatural or unsuitable substrates) and vacuum
activities (i.e., performed without a target object) fall into this category. Var-
ious authors have reviewed such behavior, generally in connection with welfare
assessments (e.g., Buchenauer, 1981; Sambraus, 1981; Wiepkema, 1983, 1985).
A brief and by no means exhaustive list of examples is given below.

(1) Restlessness in suckling piglets (Fraser, 1978) and weanling piglets

This condition may be due to an impoverished environment (Schouten,

1987), climatic stress or poor handling practices (Gonyou et al., 1986).
 203

(2) Mutual massaging in weaner piglets and in fattening pigs

Mutual massaging presumably is a re-directed rooting behavior (van Putten,

1983). Rooting, biting and nibbling on pen mates in pigs is almost always re-
directed, i.e., abnormal behavior, since pigs naturally show very little social
grooming (Signoret et al., 1975). This behavior is indicative of stress and the
lack of a more suitable target object for rooting.

(3) Coprophagia in pigs

Pigs frequently engage in coprophagia, usually without obvious detrimental

effect. Coprophagia may occur after defecation has been stimulated by anal
massage. In rare cases, this behavior can have direct and pronounced detri-
mental effects on health and performance (Sambraus, 1979 ). Coprophagia has
also been observed in dry sows in single stalls, although the feces were only
reached with difficulty. Coprophagia may usually be considered a re-directed
feeding activity, but has also been connected with malnutrition and bloody
feces (Smith and Penny, 1986).

(4) Bar biting, vacuum chewing and other stereotypies in pregnant sows

These repetitive and seemingly purposeless behaviors are commonly dis-

played by sows confined on tethers or in stalls (Bengtsson et al., 1984 ), usually
related to the feeding period (Rushen, 1984, 1985; Blackshaw and McVeigh,
1984 ) and influenced by the state of pregnancy (Cronin and Wiepkema, 1984).
Stereotypies are considered to be an expression of a state of high arousal
(Dantzer and Mormede, 1983; Dantzer, 1985) which may be due to chronic
environmental stress (Cronin, 1985 ), or frustration (Schunke, 1980 ) and, pos-
sibly, food restriction (Appleby and Lawrence, 1987). The development of
stereotypies is a dramatic process extending over weeks and is presumably very
stressful for the sows (Cronin, 1985). Concomitant and often irreversible
changes in physiological parameters (Dantzer, 1986) indicate that stereotyp-
ies are an expression of a pathological state. Performance of stereotypies con-
sumes a considerable amount of metabolizable energy (Cronin et al., 1986).
The amount of bar biting can be reduced by providing straw (Fraser, 1975 ).

(5) Preputial sucking and urine drinking in fattening pigs and beef cattle

This re-directed behavior is possibly due to a lack of roughage and water

restriction (Sambraus et al., 1984; Sambraus and Gotthard, 1985). This be-
havior also occurs in group-housed veal calves fed from a bucket, where it is of
major economic concern (Jongebreur and Smits, 1982).
204

(6) Object licking and excessive mutual licking in veal calves

Re-directed feeding behavior is frequently observed when veal calves are

kept in crates and on liquid feed without access to roughage (Graf et al., 1976;
Webster et al., 1985). It often becomes stereotyped. As a possible clinical se-
quel, mutual licking may result in hair intake and bezoar formation (Drawer,
1973 ) which can be prevented by giving 200 g of structured feed daily, e.g., in
the form of straw (Unshelm et al., 1982).

(7) Abnormal stances and motor patterns in calves

Abnormal ways of rising, lying down and atypical lying positions are com-
monly due to physical restriction when veal calves are housed in crates (Bog-
ner and Reissig, 1982; Webster et al., 1985 ). A normal resting position in ster-
nal recumbancy may be important for various physiological functions (van
Putten and Elshof, 1982; de Wilt, 1985).

(8) Quantitative changes in behavior of dairy cattle indicative of stress

A high frequency and long duration of lying down intensions in dairy cows
(Andreae et al., 1982) and a higher than normal proportion of time spent
standing while ruminating can be interpreted as signs of poor adaptation to
the housing system and stress.

(9) Tongue rolling in cattle

This stereotypic behavior has been described in calves (Unshelm et al., 1982;
Wiepkema et al., 1987), fattening bulls (Sambraus and Gotthard, 1985) and
dairy cattle (Sambraus, 1985a). It is considered to be a vacuum feeding behav-
ior caused by a lack of roughage (Unshelm et al., 1982; Sambraus, 1985a). It
is one of few stereotypic behaviors displayed by ruminants (Sambraus, 1985b ).
The indirect economic impact of abnormal behavior is poorly documented.
Thus, the validity of figures on the economic impact of behavior problems such
as the ones available for tail biting in pigs or for the buller steer syndrome,
must be doubted since usually only direct costs are considered (i.e., mortality,
carcass devaluation, etc.). One approach to demonstrate the indirect costs of
behavior is to consider the reduction in productivity of the animal performing
a given behavior, not just the one suffering from its consequences, as was done
for belly nosing in piglets (Fraser, 1978) and for stereotypies in tethered sows
(Cronin et al., 1986). However, those animals within a herd which perform
abnormal behavior may actually be better off than their herd mates not per-
forming it (Wiepkema et al., 1987; McGlone and Blecha, 1987). A correct as-
 205

sessment of indirect costs, therefore, implies an investigation at the herd level,

comparing herds with high and low prevalences of a certain behavior.

BEHAVIORPROBLEMS WITHOUTAPPARENTECONOMICIMPACT

In the preceding section, it was implied that many environmentally induced

abnormal behaviors have indirect economic effects. However, it may turn out
that a number of them have no such implications. This, at first, may seem
surprising and contradictory to the above, and needs some further explanation.
Two reasons are discussed.
(1) Optimization of economic return is not synonymous with optimization
of individual performance (Schmidt and Pritchard, 1987 ). How much the two
parameters coincide or differ depends to a large extent on the method of cal-
culation of productivity or of economic return. Parameters such as piglets per
crate and year, pounds of meat produced yearly per square meter or per man
hour, number of eggs laid per cage unit, etc., place little weight on individual
performance. Thus, economic return may be increased under conditions im-
pairing individual performance (Craig, 1981, pp. 242-244). Accordingly, it may
turn out that herds exhibiting a certain level of abnormal behavior may be
more profitable than others without them.
(2) The economic performance, as we define it for the various types of farm
animals, differs greatly from the biological performance optimized by natural
selection in order to increase the animal's inclusive fitness. Economic perform-
ance usually entails one or few traits, such as the secretion of large amounts of
milk or the laying of great numbers of (infertile!) eggs, i.e., traits that would
be maladaptive under natural conditions. Biological performance, on the other
hand, is very diverse, including such components as the ability to compete with
conspecifics, to attract a mate, to find food and shelter, to avoid predators, to
find a nest site and build a nest, to raise young, etc. It is obvious that economic
and biological performance may be in direct competition with each other, and
that striving for high economic performance may imply depression of biologi-
cal performance and entail behavior abnormalities and, presumably, suffering.
Although I believe that these cases are few, it can be anticipated that the
correction of environmental and managerial factors alleviating behavioral ab-
normalities does not invariably result in an increase in productivity. However,
it is probable that animals suffer in environments that induce abnormal be-
havior (Sambraus, 1981 ). During evolution, the wild ancestors of our domes-
ticated animals developed species-typical behavior which allowed them to meet
their vital biological needs. Suffering in situations preventing such behavior
had adaptive value, since it induced them to seek better conditions conducive
to normal development, maintenance and reproduction (Tschanz, 1982), and
thus improved their chance to promote their genotype. There is no good reason
to assume that domestication has brought about sufficient genetic change to
206

eliminate or significantly alter this survival mechanism in present day farm

animals. Abnormal behavior which has become stereotyped is particularly likely
to involve suffering since, as mentioned above, stereotypies reflect a severe
pathological disturbance of the organism.
Thus, in all cases where abnormal behavior occurs, the impairement of an-
imal welfare and the level of suffering should be considered as well as econom-
ics, when decisions regarding possible measures and changes in husbandry pro-
cedures are being made. It is an ethical concern whether economic return or
total health (Fraser, 1985) ought to be optimized, or what constitutes an ac-
ceptable compromise between the two.

PRACTICALCONSIDERATIONS

Behavior observations and treatment of behavior problems should be part

of every herd health program. It is proposed that herd records, a fundamental
basis for any herd health program, should also include behavioral data, aside
from the traditionally considered environment, management and performance
variables. Behavioral observations may serve as sensitive indicators of specific
deficiencies in the production system resulting in reduced performance, or of
the progress made in approaching the performance targets. Freedom, or at
least a low level of abnormal behavior indicative of reduced animal welfare,
may in itself be a target.
The analysis and treatment of behavior problems, either as part of a herd
health program or as emergency service, consists of a problem-solving process
considering the five "Ws": What, Who, Where, When and Why? However,
there are certain peculiarities to the analysis of behavior problems, such as the
comparison of the farm environment to the situation in which the behavior is
naturally displayed, and the consideration of ontogenetic development. The
main steps proposed when dealing clinically with a behavior problem are listed
below.

(A) History taking

When obtaining a history of the specific behavior problem, questions relat-

ing to the following points must be considered.
(1) The nature of the problem needs to be identified. Often, the information
obtained relates merely to the consequences of a behavior rather than the be-
havior itself. For example, in the case of tail biting in pigs, it relates to the
occurrence of tail lesions, not the actual biting. The behavior itself may not
have been observed at all. Setting up a video camera may be useful in these
cases, but where the behavior occurs only sporadically, this may be a futile
endeavor.
(2) Information must be obtained regarding the affected population and the
 207

spatial distribution of the problem in the barn. If the distribution pattern is

consistent, an obvious step in further analysis of the problem would be a com-
parison between affected and non-affected pens, stalls or strains of animals.
(3) Questions related to the severity (numbers involved, mortality, reduc-
tion in weight gain) and the economic impact of the problem will help to assess
the feasibility of various methods of treatment.
(4) Many behavior problems display either seasonal or other distinct tem-
poral patterns. Questions related to the dynamics of the problem are thus of
obvious importance. Onset and termination may be related to changes in en-
vironment or management, such as the beginning or the end of the pasture
season, a change from summer to winter ventilation, a change in feed, or a new
person working in the barn. The problem may also coincide with the introduc-
tion of new genetic material or the occurrence of other disease.
(5) Any treatment so far attempted should be noted, since this information
may be helpful in establishing a diagnosis.
(6) Any other health or productivity problems in the herd should be noted.

(B) Observations

Unfortunately, entering the barn results in disturbance of the animals, and

the veterinary clinician often will not allot the time to allow the animals to
habituate to his presence and then take systematic behavioral observations.
Nevertheless, quiet observation is often a key to solving a problem. For ex-
ample, in the case of tail biting, it is essential to observe piglets in the nursery
to determine the presence of tail nibbling at this early stage of production.
Sometimes, observations will have to be limited to the consequences of be-
havior, e.g., lesions. A thorough inspection of all individual animals is often
essential to assess the present distribution and severity of the problem.
Further observations relate to the general physical layout of the housing
system, the type of manure system, the design of the ventilation system and
the design of the pen or tether system, etc.

(C) Measurements

Specific measurements relating to the physical, the climatic and the social
environment are taken.

(1) Physical environment

Exact measurements of the housing system are recorded, e.g., pen size and
design, feeder space, number of waterers, stall dimensions, design of the tether
system, etc. Since an unbalanced diet can induce problems such as tail biting,
feed samples should be taken for analysis.
208

(2) Climatic environment

Factors considered include parameters of ventilation, such as air flow pat-
terns and air velocity, temperature and temperature fluctuations, humidity,
manure gas levels, etc. It may also be advisable to measure for stray voltage.

(3) Social environment

Social factors which have to be taken into account relate to the degree of
social isolation, group size and composition, group stability and stocking
density.
While environmental measurements are important, they should always be
taken with the nature of the specific behavior problem in mind. They are not
the only means or even sufficient means, to arrive at a diagnosis and devise a
treatment scheme.

(D) Comparison to the natural situation

A comparison between the natural situation and the artificial barn environ-
ment helps to identify shortcomings of the latter, such as the lack of suitable
target objects for behavior and the impossibility for the animals to seek social
contact or social isolation.

(E) Ontogeny of problem behavior

Clinical observations suggest that behavior problems affecting animals at a

certain stage of production often originate from circumstances at an earlier
age. The reader is referred to the discussion of specific behavior problems in
previous paragraphs (e.g., tail biting and pen fouling in pigs, milk sucking in
cows, etc. ). In these cases, treatment has to be directed primarily towards the
situation which originally prompted the behavior, as opposed to the situation
in which the behavior was first perceived as a problem.
Providing there is a sufficient working knowledge of the normal behavior of
our domestic species, and of the ethological principles underlying normal and
abnormal behavior, this approach will be sufficient to solve most cases of ab-
normal or unwanted behavior. With more veterinarians becoming involved in
clinical ethology and the resulting increase in experience, more specific and
more efficient approaches will probably be developed for the treatment of the
more common behavior problems in our farm animals.

CONCLUSIONS

Veterinary ethology is an emerging discipline, the importance of which is

only now being appreciated. Through its complex relationship to veterinary
medicine, it makes essential contributions to clinical medicine and, in partic-
 209

ular, to herd health programs. Ethologists have established a solid base of use-
ful concepts on which a clinical approach to behavior problems can be devel-
oped. Since it is such a young discipline, clinical veterinary ethology suffers
from an obvious lack of much needed information which must be established
if it is to become more viable. This information relates mainly to: (1) the epi-
demiology of behavior problems; (2) economic aspects, i.e. direct and indirect
costs of problems and feasibility of treatment regimes; (3) the efficacy of var-
ious treatment regimes to establish accurate prognoses. It is hoped that this
paper will generate interest in the area, and stimulate the research and clinical
ethological practice necessary to provide this information.

REFERENCES

Algers, B., 1984. Early weaning and cage rearing of piglets: Influence on behavior. Zentralbl. Vet-
erinaermed. Reihe, A, 31: 14-24.
Allison, C.J., 1976. Snout-rubbing as a vice in weaned pigs. Vet. Rec., 98: 254-255.
Andreae, U. and Papendieck, T., 1971. Verhalten von Milchkuhen bei der Wahl ihrer Liegeboxen
im Laufstall. Tierzuchter, 23: 432-435.
Andreae, U., Thielscher, H.H., Unshelm, J. and Smidt, D., 1982. Ethological and physiological
conditioning of young cattle in intensive housing systems. In: J.P. Signoret {Editor), Welfare
and Husbandry of Calves. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, pp. 235-241.
Appleby, M.C. and Lawrence, A.B., 1987. Food restriction as a cause of stereotypic behavior in
tethered gilts. Anim. Prod., 45: 103-110.
Bengtsson, A.C., Svendsen, J. and Andersson, M., 1984. Housing of sows in gestation: studies of
behavior in different types of group housing. In: J. Unshelm, G. van Putten and K. Zeeb (Ed-
itors), Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology in Farm Animals, 1984,
at Kiel, pp. 214-216.
Blackshaw, J.K. and McVeigh, J.F., 1984. Stereotype behavior in sows and gilts housed in stalls,
tethers, and groups. In: M.W. Fox and L.D. Mickley (Editors), Advances in Animal Welfare
Science. pp. 163-173.
Blood, D.C., Morris, R.S., Williamson, N.B., Cannon, C.M. and Cannon, R.M., 1978. A health
program for commercial dairy herds. 1. Objectives and methods. Aust. Vet. J., 54: 207-215.
Bogner, H. and Reissig, F., 1982. Verhalten yon Mastkalbern in verschiedenen Haltungssystemen.
Tierarztl. Prax., 10: 465-470.
Broom, D.M., 1987. The veterinary relevance of farm animal ethology. Vet. Rec., 121: 400-402.
Brower, G.R. and Kiracofe, G.H., 1978. Factors associated with the buller-steer syndrome. J.
Anim. Sci., 46: 26-31.
Brummer, H., 1978. Verhaltensstorungen. In: H.H. Sambraus (Editor), Nutztierethologie. Paul
Parey, Berlin/Hamburg, pp. 281-292.
Buchenauer, D., 1981. Parameters for assessing welfare, ethological criteria. In: W. Sybesma (Ed-
itor), The Welfare of Pigs. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, pp. 75-89.
Burmeister, F., Teuffert, J. and Schluter, H., 1981. Die bedeutung des Milchsaugens fur die Eu-
tergesundheit. Monatsh. Veterinaermed., 36: 407-411.
Cermak, J., 1987. The design of cubicles for British Friesian dairy cows with reference to body
weight and dimensions, spatial behavior and upper leg lameness. In: H.K. Wierenga and D.J.
Peterse (Editors), Cattle housing Systems, Lameness and Behavior. Martinus Nijhoff, Bos-
ton, pp. 119-128.
210

Craig, J.V., 1981. Domestic Animal Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 364 pp.
Cronin, G.M., 1985. The Development and Significance of Abnormal Stereotyped Behaviors in
Tethered Sows. Thesis, Wageningen, pp. 19-50.
Cronin, G.M. and Wiepkeman, P.R., 1984. An analysis of stereotyped behaviour in tethered sows.
Ann. Rech. Vet., 15: 263-270.
Cronin, G.M., van Tartwijk, J.M.F.M. van der Hel, W. and Verstegen, M.W.A., 1986. The influ-
ence of degree of adaptation to tether housing by sows in relation to behavior and energy
metabolism. Anim. Prod., 42: 257-268.
Dantzer, R., 1986. Behavioral, physiological and functional aspects of stereotyped behavior: a
review and reinterpretation. J. Anim. Sci., 62: 1776-1786.
Dantzer, R. and Mormede, P., 1983. De-arousal properties of stereotyped behavior: Evidence from
pituitary-adrenal correlates in pigs. Appl. Anim. Ethol., 10: 233-244.
Davies, G., 1985. Art, science and mathematics: New approaches to animal health problems in the
agricultural industry. Vet. Rec., 117: 263-267.
Deja, D., Partzsch, C. and Vedder, H., 1982. Erste Erfahrungen beim Einsatz der "Frohndorfer
Methode" gegen das Saugen der Rinder im Bezirk Erfurt. Monatsh. Veterinaermed., 37: 132-
134.
De Wilt, J.E., 1985. Behavior and welfare of veal calves. Thesis, Wageningen, 138 pp.
Drawer, K., 1973. Concrements and pseudo-concrements in food animals. Vet. Med. Rev., 1973:
160-166.
Ekesbo, I., 1966. Disease incidence in tied and loose housed dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand., Suppl.
15, 74 pp.
Ekesbo, 1978. Ethics, ethology and animal health in modern Swedish livestock production. In:
D.W. Fiilsch (Editor). The Ethology and Ethics of Farm Animal Production. Birkhauser,
Basel/Stuttgart, pp. 46-50.
Ewbank, R., 1973. The trouble with being a farm animal. N e w Sci.,60: 172-173.
Ewbank, R., 1986. Animal Welfare: is an epidemiological approach possible? In: M.V. Thrusfield
(Editor), Proceedings of the Society of Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, 2-
4 April 1986, at Edinburgh, Gt. Britain, pp. 92-96.
Fessl, L., Hantak, E. and Hofmann, R., 1984. Zur Problematik des Baues von Rinderstallungen
aus orthopadischer Sicht. Berl. Muench. Tieraerztl.Wochenschr., 97: 235-239.
Fox, M.W., 1967. The place and future of animal behavior studies in veterinary medicine. J. Am.
Vet. Med. Assoc., 151: 609-615.
Fraser, A.F., 1984. Some divisions of applied ethology. Appl. Anita. Behav. Sci.,12: 201-207.
Fraser, A.F., 1985. Deprivation of maintenance behavior in modern farm animal husbandry. In:
A.F. Fraser (Editor), Ethology of Farm Animals. Elsevier,Amsterdam, pp. 377-389.
Fraser, C.M. and Mays, A. (Editors), 1986. Merck Veterinary Manual. Merck and Co., Rahway,
NJ, 1677 pp.
Fraser, D., 1975. The effectof straw on the behavior of sows in tether stalls.Anim. Prod., 21: 59-
68.
Fraser, D., 1977. Some behavioural aspects of milk ejection failureby sows. Br. Vet. J., 153: 126-
133.
Fraser, D., 1978. Observations on the behavioural development of suckling and early-weaned pig-
letsduring the firstsix weeks afterbirth. Anita. Behav., 26: 22-30.
Fraser, D., 1987. Attraction to blood as a factor in tailbiting by pigs. Appl. Anita. Behav. Sci.,17:
61-68.
Gonyou, H.W., Hemsworth, P.H. and Barnett, J.L., 1986. Effects of frequent interactions with
humans on growing pigs. Appl. Anita. Behav. Sci., 16: 269-278.
Graf, B., Wegmann, R. and Rist, M., 1976. Das Verhalten von Mastkalbern bei verschiedenen
Haltungsformen. Schweiz. Landwirtsch. Monateh., 54: 333-355.
Grommets, F.J., 1979. A review of the problem of milk-sucking in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Ethol.,
5: 293.
 211

Groth, W., 1978. Tierschutz und verhaltensbezogene Gesichtspunkte der Kalbermast. Tierzucher,
10: 419-422.
Groth, W., 1984. Mangel im Haltungssystem als Ursache von Gliedmassenschaden bei Rindern.
Tieraerztl. Umsch., 39: 196-201.
Groth, W., 1985. Kriterien fur die Beurteilung von Haltungssystemen fur Milchkuhe und Mast-
bullen aus Klinischer Sicht. Tieraerztl. Umsch., 40: 739-750.
Groth, W. and Eichler, H.J., 1978. Haltungsbedingte Schaden beim Milchvieh. Fortschr. Veteri-
naermed., 28: 34-43.
Hansen, K.E. and Curtis, S.E., 1981. Prepartal activity of sows in stall or pen. J. Anim. Sci., 51:
456-460.
Hart, B.L., 1985. Animal behavior and the fever response: theoretical considerations. J. Am. Vet.
Med. Assoc., 187: 998-1001.
Hemsworth, P.H., 1978. The importance of stimulation by partners on the reproductive success
of pigs. International World Congress on Ethology Applied to Zootechnics, 1978, at Madrid.
Houpt, K.A., 1976. Animal behavior as a subject for veterinary students. Cornell Vet., 66: 73-81.
Hurnik, J.F., 1987. Sexual behavior of female domestic mammals. In: E.O. Price (Editor), Farm
Animal Behavior. The Veterinary Clinics of North America, Food Animal Practice, 3. Saun-
ders, Toronto, pp. 423-461.
Irwin, M.R., Melendy, D.R., Amoss, M.S. and Hutcheson, D.P., 1979. Roles of predisposing fac-
tors and gonadal hormones in the buller syndrome of feedlot steers. J. Vet. Med. Assoc., 174:
367-370.
Jongebreur, A.A. and Smits, A.C., 1982. Group housing systems for veal calves. In: J.P. Signoret
(Editor), Welfare and Husbandry of Calves. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, pp. 217-225.
Kammer, P. and Tschanz, B., 1975. Untersuchungen zur tiergerechten Haltung von Milchvieh in
Boxenlaufstallen. Schweiz. Landwirtsch. Forsch., 14: 203-223.
Klastrup, 0., Bakken, G., Bramley, J. and Bushnell, R., 1987. Environmental influences on bovine
mastitis. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation, 217, 37 pp.
Klemm, W.R., Sherry, C.J., Schake, L.M. and Sis, R.F., 1983. Homosexual behavior in feedlot
steers: an aggression hypothesis. Appl. Anim. Ethol., 11:187-195.
Kopp, M.B., Friend, T.H. and Dellmeier, G.R., 1986. Effect of feeding method on nonnutritive
oral activities in holstein calves. J. Dairy Sci., 69: 3094-3099.
Leman, A.D., Straw, B., Glock, R.D., Mengeling, W.L., Penny, R.H.C. and Scholl, E., (Editors),
1986. Diseases of Swine, sixth edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, 930 pp.
Lewis, C.J. and Oakley, G.A., 1970. Treatment of puerperal psychosis in sows with sedative and
anaesthetic drugs. Vet. Rec., 87: 616-617.
Lewis, N.J. and Hurnik, J.F., 1979. Stimulation of feeding in neonatal turkeys by flashing lights.
Appl. Anim. Ethol., 5: 161-171.
Lincoln, S.D., 1983. Ethology and control of buller syndrome. Norden News, 58: 24-26, 28.
Littlejohn, A., 1969. An approach to clinical veterinary ethology. Br. Vet. J., 125: 46-48.
Luescher, U.A. and McKeown, D.B., 1987. Clinical veterinary ethology in food animals. Can. Vet.
J., 28: 304-305.
Madec, F., 1982. Urinary problems in the sow. Pig Int., 12: 28-29.
McGlone, J.J. and Blecha, F., 1987. An examination of behavioral, immunological and productive
traits in four management systems for sows and piglets. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 18: 269-286.
McKeown, D.B. and Luescher, U.A., 1988. A case for companion animal behavior in the veterinary
practice. Can. Vet. J., 29: 74-75.
Meek, A.J., Mitchell, W.R., Curtis, R.A. and Coate, J.F., 1975. A proposed information manage-
ment and disease monitoring system for dairy herds. Can. Vet. J., 16: 329-340.
Mees, A.M.F. and Metz, J.H.M., 1983. Saugverhalten von Kalbern - - Bedurfnis und Bedriedigung
bei verschiedenen Trankesystemen. Tagung Dt. vet. med. Ges.e.V., Fachgruppe Verhaltensfor-
schung, 16-19 November, Freiburg, i. Br.
212

Mellinger, R., 1980. Chirurgie de la langue chez le bovin teteur. Point Vet., 10: 11-14.
Penny, R., 1982. Tail biting most common cause still unknown. Int. Pigletter, pp. 1-2.
Penny, R.H.C. and Hill, F.W.G., 1974. Observations of some conditions in pigs at the abbatoir
with particular reference to tail biting. Vet. Rec., 94: 174-180.
Penny, R.H.C., Waiters, J.R. and Tredget, S.J., 1981. Tail biting in pigs: A sex frequency between
boars and gilts. Vet. Rec., 198: 35.
Peterse, D.J., Rutgers, B., Schaftenaar, W. and Grommers, F.J., 1978. Een onderzoek naar melk-
zuigen by runderen. Tijdschr. Diergeneeskd., 103: 485-489.
Petherick, J.C., 1983. A biological basis for the design of space in livestock housing. In: S.H.
Baxter, M.R. Baxter and J.A.D. MacCormack (Editors), Farm Animal Housing and Welfare.
Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, 343 pp.
Pierson, R.E., Jensen, R., Braddy, P.M., Horton, D.P. and Christie, R.M., 1976. Bulling among
yearling feedlot steers. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 169: 521-523.
Rushen, J.P., 1984. Stereotyped behaviour, adjunctive drinking and the feeding periods of teth-
ered sows. Anim. Behav., 32: 1059-1067.
Rushen, J.P., 1985. Stereotypies, aggression and the feeding schedules of tethered sows. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci., 14: 137-147.
Sambraus, H.H., 1979. Analmassage und Kotfressen bei Mastschweinen. Dtsch. Tieraerztl. Woch-
enschr., 86: 45-84.
Sambraus, H.H., 1981. Abnormal behavior as an indicator of immaterial suffering. Int. J. Stud.
Anim. Probl., 2: 245-248.
Sambraus, H.H., 1984. Gegenseitiges Besaugen yon Kalbern bei kunstlicher Aufzucht. Berl.
Muench. Tieraerztl. Wochenschr., 97:119-123.
Sambraus, H.H., 1985a. Mouth-based anomalous syndromes. In: A. Fraser (Editor), Ethology of
Farm Animals. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 391-422.
Sambraus, H.H., 1985b. Stereotypies. In: A.F. Fraser (Editor), Ethology of Farm Animals. Else-
vier, Amsterdam, pp. 431-441.
Sambraus, H.H. and Gotthard, A., 1985. Praeputiumsaugen und Zungenspielen bei intensiv ge-
haltenen Mastbullen. Dtsch. Tieraerztl. Wochenschr., 92: 465-468.
Sambraus, H.H. Kirchner, M. and Graf, B., 1984. Verhaltensstorungen bei intensiv gehatenen
Mastbullen. Dtsch. Tieraerztl. Wochenschr., 91: 56-60.
Sanford, S.E., 1982. Fall abortions in sows. Can. Vet. J., 23: 36.
Schluter, H., Teuffert, J. and Burmeister, F., 1981. Untersuchungen zum Saugverhalten, zur Hau-
figkeit und zu den Ursachen des Milchsaugens. Monatsh. Veterinaermed., 36: 403-407.
Schmidt, G.H. and Pritchard, D.E., 1987. Effect of increased production per cow on economic
returns. J. Dairy Sci., 70: 2695-2704.
Schouten, W.G.P., 1987. Effects of rearing conditions on the behavior of gilts around farrowing.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 17:367 (abstract).
Schunke, B., 1980. Verhaltensanomalien bei Zuchtsauen im Kastenstand. Thesis, Munich, 126
pp.
Signoret, J.P., Baldwin, B.A., Fraser, D. and Hafez, E.S.E., 1975. The behavior of swine. In: E.S.E.
Hafez (Editor), The Behavior of Domestic Animals. Bailliere Tindall, London, pp. 295-329.
Simonsen, H.B., 1983. Vurdering af maelkeran og tungerulning pa basis af sporgeskemaunderso-
gelse i 24 problembesaetninger. Dan. Veterinaertidsskr., 66: 669-671.
Smith, W.J. and Penny, R.H.C., 1986. Behavioral problems including vices and cannibalism. In:
A.D. Leman, B. Straw, R.D. Glock, W.L. Mengeling, R.H.C. Penny and E. Scholl (Editors),
Diseases of Swine. Iowa State University press, Ames, IA.
Steiger, A. and Arnold, J., 1976. Untersuchungen zum Schwanzbeissen bei Mastschweinen. In:
Probleme Tiergerechter Haltung. KTBL, Darmstadt, pp. 56-72.
 213

Stein, T.E., 1986. Marketing health management to food animal enterprises. Part II. The structure
of herd health management services. Compend. Cont. Educ. Pract. Vet., 8: $331-$336.
Stockl, W., Bamberg, E. and Enengel, H., 1970. Uber den Jodstoffwechsel bei Schweinen mit
einem Beitrag uber das Ferkelfressen. Wien. Tieraerztl. Monatsschr., 57: 274-279.
Straiton, E.C., 1967. How to Recognize and Treat Common Pig Ailments. Farming Press, Ipswich,
160 pp.
Stricklin, W.R., 1983. A survey of animal behavior-related research and teaching activities in
North American Agricultural and Veterinary Medical Colleges. Int. J. Stud. Anim. Prob., 4:
279-283.
Symoens, J. and van Gestel, J., 1972. Die Behandlung des Ferkelfressens mit Azaperon. Tieraerztl.
Umsch., 27: 170-172.
Szucs, E., Molnar, I., Weber, A., Szollosi, I. and Kishonti, L., 1983. The effects of feeding milk
from nipple-pails or buckets in calf rearing. Acta Agron. Acad. Sci. Hung., 32: 273-284.
Tschanz, B., 1982. Verhalten, Bedarfsdeckung und Schadenvermeidung bei Tieren. Tagung Nutz-
tierkommission Schweizer Tierschutz, Internationale GeseUschaft fur Nutztierhaltung, 23 April
1982, at Bern, Switzerland.
Ulbrich, R., 1981. The buller steer syndrome. Int. J. Stud. Anim. Probl., 2: 261-268.
Unshelm, J. Andreae, U. and Smidt, D., 1982. Behavioral and physiological studies on rearing
calves and veal calves. In: J.P. Signoret (Editor), Welfare and Husbandry of Calves. Martinus
Nijhoff, Boston, pp. 70-76.
Van Putten, G., 1969. An investigation into tail biting among fattening pigs. Br. Vet. J., 125:511-
517.
Van Putten, G., 1983. Bewertung von Schweinehartungssystemen bezuglich Wohlbefinden. 3. GFT-
Seminar, 26 September-1 October, Grub.
Van Putten, G. and Dammers, J., 1976. A comparative study of the well-being of piglets reared
conventionally and in cages. Appl. Anim. Ethol., 2: 339-356.
Van Putten G. and Elshof, W.Y., 1982. The lying behavior of veal calves up to 220 kg. In: Signoret,
J.P. (Editor), Welfare and Husbandry of Calves. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, pp. 83-97.
Vestergaard, K. and Hansen, L.L., 1984. Tethered versus loose sows: ethological observations and
measures of productivity. I. Ethological observations during pregnancy and farrowing. Ann.
Rech. Vet., 15: 245-256.
Visnjakow, J.I. and Georgiev, M., 1972. Swine caudophagy, a new epizootiological link of trichi-
nellosis in the industrial swine farms. Acta Parasitol. Pol., 20: 597-604.
Voith, V.L., 1984. Why should veterinarians study animal behavior? Mod. Vet. Pract., 65: 363-
364.
Von Cramon, A., 1978. Kannibalismus-- ein ungelostes Problem? Dtsch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr.,
85: 345-380.
Webster, A.J.F., 1983. Environmental stress and the physiology, performance and health of rum-
inants. J. Anim. Sci., 57: 1584-1593.
Webster, A.J.F., Saville, C., Church, B.M., Gnanasakthy, A. and Moss, R., 1985. The effect of
different rearing systems on the development of calf behavior. Br. Vet. J., 141: 249-264.
Wiepkema, P.R., 1983. On the significance of ethological criteria for the assessment of animal
welfare. In: D. Smidt (Editor), Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare. Martinus Nijhoff,
Boston, pp. 71-79.
Wiepkema, P.R., 1985. Abnormal behaviors in farm, animals: ethological implications. Neth. J.
Zool., 35: 279-299.
Wiepkema, P.R., van Hellemond, K.K., Roessingh, P. and Romberg, H., 1987. Behavior and
abomasal damage in individual veal calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 18: 257-268.
Wierenga, H.K., 1983. The influence of the space for walking and lying in a cubicle system on the
behavior of dairy cattle. In: S.H. Baxter, M.R. Baxter and J.A.C. MacCormack (Editors),
Farm Animal Housing and Welfare. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, pp. 171-180.
214

Wood-Gush, D.G.M., Duncan, I.J.H. and Fraser, D., 1975. Social stress and welfare problems in
agricultural animals. In: E.S.E. Hafez (Editor), The Behavior of Domestic Animals. Baillere
Tindall, London, pp. 182-200.
Wright, J.C., 1986. Directory of animal behavior consultants. Animal Behavior Consultant News-
letter, October, 1986.