1

Empowering Cattle Well-being Through Learning

Safe and Efficient, Practical, Low-energy Cow Care©

Don Höglund MS, DVM1

Dairy Stockmanship 2018

Introduction

The next generation of cow care and well-being is about learning; human and animal. Safe handling of cattle requires that we approach the concept of the human and animal relationship with profound care. That care will empower the handler and animal relationship because it limits or even eliminates arguments that involve analogy; human vs animal. This ideology calls for “being more careful” with animal well-being.

Humans and non-human animals can learn 24/7/365. That means that every encounter between animals and people can shape the future well-being of both. Livestock observe the world around them and respond based on previous experiences, sensory input, inherited traits, and species typical behaviors. In that way, they are no different than people. There are differences, however. These lie in different experiences, perceptions, biological potential, and behavior. Knowledge of animal behavior and neurology have matured to the point that veterinarians and animal scientists can now use terms and phrases that respect the differences between animals and humans. Humans have the unique potential for verbal language and that underlies some of the fundamental distinctions between the species. The belief that language, sensory perception, cognition, and culture shape human experiences, including emotions, is well accepted in neuroscience.3, 6, 13 The lack of language and culture, and the differences in sensory capabilities mean that animals cannot experience the world the way humans do. That also means that learned animal feelings, whatever they might be, cannot be the same.10

That is not a denial of conscious awareness in animals; instead it is recognition that humans will never truly understand animal perspective. Scientists can study whether neurological and physiological responses to situations parallel those of humans. While sentience is widely accepted for mammals, we do not know if it is interpreted the same way a person might. Regardless of the variations between livestock and humans or in the similarities of overt expressions of behavior, gentle, consistent, and non-threatening handling will help to establish a relationship that empowers safe, efficient, humane, and productive results for animals and their human handlers.

Humane handling is important, but what role does it play in the practical well-being debate? In fact, just what does humane mean? The most obvious reason for the quandary about humane versus inhumane treatment of animals is that inappropriate handling results in conflict behaviors potentially leading to a stress response in animals and handlers. But what

1 Editing assistance by Laurel Trammell.

2

exactly is stress, or worse, distress? We use these terms often and try to measure them physiologically but scientists do not have a universally accepted definition for stress.12 That reality makes “stress” difficult to study, qualify, and quantify. The dilemma in using the word stress is enhanced because subjective evaluations of “stress” are individual assessments. That subjectivity can result in endless opposing interpretations or value assumptions.4, 5

Although the word stress is often used to mean distress, they really are different. Distress is more extreme and is said to occur when the animal cannot adapt to negative internal or external conditions.11 Until science research defines more accurate ways of measuring the stress response, animal handlers should take great care identifying and reducing the incidence and severity of stressors. That has positive wellbeing implications for “All Creatures Great and Small.”

Assessments of humane handling are based on several factors including the use of techniques that minimize suffering and promote contentment; or allow good health, growth, and reproduction; or allow the animal to use natural behaviors.5

In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on techniques that improve the well-being of all species of animals. Improved handling techniques are only part of the solution. Understanding how animals learn is arguably the cornerstone for studying, teaching, and applying efficient handling methods wherever animals reside. Coupling the science of learning with practical applications is where the art and science of safe animal handling converge. Studied practice is likely the only way to perfect safe and efficient handling skill.

At the extreme, handling can be dangerous if the conflicted animal turns aggressive because it cannot find a route to escape distressful situations. This is the blatantly obvious concern. The significant ones are subtler. Studies in livestock behavior have repeatedly shown that aversive handling will increase maladaptive behaviors toward humans, making the animal’s behavior unpredictable and potentially dangerous. In the final analysis, handler created conflict behaviors in livestock can reduce production efficiency, growth, reproduction, and health.8, 9

Most of the safe techniques that have been popularized recently emphasize the use of the natural responses of an animal species to make working with them easier. Different authors have slightly different approaches to their techniques, but all are based on the concept of using what is natural for the animal: moving away from an approaching alien species, as an example. Natural reactions, innate behaviors, and reflexes, however, are not products of learning, and learning is the central component of safe handling and training of animals. Without an understanding of how animals interpret their environment and learn from it, handlers are merely doing things; standing here and moving there. Understanding what natural survival behaviors are, and how they can be incorporated to influence learning, and can help to make effective handling efficient. If the handling process is safe and efficient, then it is effective and productive too.

In any environment, it is desirable for people working with animals to have a variety of safe handling techniques to select. Handlers need to adapt what they try to what works efficiently, and to which of the safe methods feel the most comfortable to the handler. Each animal is one-of-a-kind and every handling scenario is unique from the animal’s perspective.

We do not have data regarding handling of livestock species other than that mentioned above, and there certainly has been a large amount of negative press regarding some high

3

visibility handling situations spread by the media. Regardless, most people think they do a good job at using safe handling techniques, even if they truly are not. Attitudes of stockmen and women regarding aversive handling of their livestock have been shown to be independent of their attitudes toward the animals, even though they recognize that human contact is important to ease of handling.2

Adopting new handling styles is difficult once a pattern has been learned. That is true for animals, and especially true for people. It is easier to buy a new piece of handling equipment than it is to adopt a new technique, even one that is easy to learn.7 It sometimes takes an outside influence to make us take a fresh look at what we are actually doing. Dairy Stockmanship: learning can establish a “culture of safety” – a practical approach In all affairs it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.

Bertrand Russell Success in working with dairy cattle is not related to the intelligence or lack of it on the part of the animals. It really depends on the animal’s ability to try behaviors until something works. The process of getting an animal from point A to point B can be a distressful, reactive, trial and error attempt, in which the human finally lucks out at getting the job done, or it can be a low-energy experience for the human and the animals. Which it is will depend on the human’s understanding of how an animal perceives its world, how animals learn, the relative importance of its social peers, and what motivates the animal to avoid or escape threats.

With that knowledge, appropriate techniques can be used to create an outcome that is efficient and safe for all involved. Failing to understand how animals learn, and why they respond to their environment as they do, can have well-being implications for human and animal. That also has consumer perception and profit consequences.

Creating a culture of handling safety on dairy farms should begin with the simultaneous education of ownership, management, and staff in the validated principles of how animals actually learn. Then those principles should be practiced in real-time. For instance, you likely cannot learn to drive a car, play a piano, or ride a unicycle, by watching a video of someone else doing it. No amount of education can build animal handling skill or talent if the knowledge of learning theory is not practiced by all handlers on a given farm and consistently applied in the pastures, pens, or parlors.

Efficient handlers understand that dairy cattle observe the world around them and they respond based on previous experiences, sensory input, inherited traits and species typical behaviors. Safe handlers understand that animals are reacting to human presence and action in a given environment. Observant handlers also recognize that the best predictor of future animal behavior is past animal behavior. Animal behavior can be changed through thoughtful alterations in handler behavior.

Defending against challenges, regulating fluid levels, reproducing, maintaining body temperature and consuming nutrient energy are typical cattle survival behaviors. In that way, they are no different from people. There are differences, however. These lie in different

4

experiences, perceptions, and behavior. Knowledge of animal behavior and neurology have matured to the point that veterinarians and animal scientists can now use terms and phrases that respect the differences between animals and humans. Humans have the unique potential for verbal language and that underlies some of the fundamental distinctions between the species. The belief that language, sensory perception, cognition, and culture shape human experiences, including emotions, is well accepted in neuroscience. The lack of language and culture, and the differences in sensory capabilities mean that animals cannot experience the world the way humans do. That also means that animal feelings, whatever they might be, cannot be the same. Educated and skilled handlers realize that animal behaviors are not reliable evidence of unknowable animal feelings or mental motivations. This indicates that human mental motivations, such as, fear, sadness, trust, friendliness, and happiness should not be used to describe animal behaviors including their physiology. We can describe what animals do and when they tend do it, but not what they are potentially thinking or feeling. Regardless of the variations between dairy cattle and humans, or in the similarities of

overt expressions of behavior, gentle, consistent and non-threatening handling can help to

establish a relationship that empowers a farm-culture with safe, efficient, and productive

results for animals and their human handlers.

Dairy Stockmanshipi - is not in the dictionary – but animal handling is a function of energy

In animal handling terms, stimulation of any kind on livestock is often referred to as a form of

pressure. When the handler is not touching the animal, behaviorists prefer to use the word

stimulus (stimuli) instead of mental or psychological inferences, such as pressure. Stimulus can

be quantified, whereas assessments of mental pressure are hard to measure. Low energy

handling enthusiasts prefer to regard human and animal interaction as a function of energy

micro-management. Irrespective of choice of words and excepting for the cases where precise

words provide for an untended double-entendre, science demands expression that is as precise

as possible. Regarding human and animal interaction, any detectible encroachment and

withdrawal (from any animal in any environment) can be interpreted by the animal’s brain

through their five senses. Environmental interpretation is all about energy; vison is affected by

photon energy converted to neuro-chemical-electrical energy, sound by frequency energy

mechanically converted to neuro-chemical-electrical energy, olfaction by the conversion of

gaseous molecular energy, gustation by molecular to neuro-energy, and the somesthetic or

“body sensation” sense-of-touch through mechanical to neuro receptors regarding pressure,

pain, and thermo-sensors of heat and cold. As a result, low energy animal handling concerns

itself with the management of human energy and its effect on animal responses.

Conceptually, the escape or so-called “flight” zone has been thought of as being an

animal’s personal space and when that space is violated the animal may involuntarily escape or

have learned from prior experience to avoid the threat. See figure 1.

5

Figure 1. A circle or an oval around an animal has been

the proposed schema for fight and flight for many decades. This is likely not an accurate scheme.

There are a few general concepts about cow behavior stock handlers should keep in

mind. Livestock derive information from the environment, including from their own internal

and external biological events, through their five senses: sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste.

Cows do not use language to communicate with people or other non-human animals so stock

handlers must communicate with cows by stimulating the senses of the animal.ii The two most

important senses a cow uses to investigate what is going on in her environment are likely sight

and hearing. There are varying positions on which sense is the most important for survival.

Cows often direct hearing and vision at what is stimulating them. Regardless, the most

significant stimulus is determined by the animal. Because the eyes and ears of the cow are

positioned on the side of the skull, cows have excellent peripheral vision and hearing. Cattle do

have depth perception monocularly, but depth perception is enhanced by five-times when

binocular vision is unimpeded.iii

Figure 2. The modern senses directed, biased-forward, version of what zones

may apply, and the so-called blind zone in the rear of the animal. This is also likely a flawed

version of reality where freezing, fleeing, avoidance and aggression are not accounted for in the scheme depicted in figure 2.

There is a narrow, so-called, visual blind spot discussed in the literature and it is said to

be positioned directly behind the rump in livestock. See figure 2. A good general rule is that if

the handler can see the cow’s eyeball she can probably see the handler. If the animal has

functioning senses, there is no reason to believe that she could not hear the handler if the

6

handler would emit distinguishing, but non-startling noises. Or, the human should approach the

animal from a position where her eyeball can be seen, and in this manner, she can probably see

and hear the handler. Surprising livestock is never a good idea, so it is most efficient to let them

see the handler if possible and if not, let them gently hear who approaches them. A real-world

dilemma arises when considering the blind zone of an animal. That is the area that humans

tend to stand, work around, and work on when handling cattle. Therefore, conditioning the

animals on any farm to comply with a “rear-approach,” stand calmly while being touched from

the rear, such as during milking, artificial insemination, and during assisted birthing, would be

useful on all farms and ranches. See figure 3.

Figure 3. Her life’s work is to allow humans in the “so-called” blind zone.

Innate avoidance is conceptualized as a survival mechanism to aversive environmental

stimulus and it is a natural phenomenon that can be supplemented by learned avoidance, other

actions, and habits. See Figure 4. Arguably, conventional fight and flight is a flawed premise

given that the observed and studied reality is stimulus, freeze, flee (escape), possibly avoidance,

and potentially aggression (in at least three forms).

Figure 4. Potentially a more accurate depiction of the three zones of animal vision perception (at distance, blue perception zone

outside of green avoidance zone, green avoidance due to visual accommodation restrictions on focus within one-half meter, and at touch sensation where reacting or avoiding depends some-what on familiarity of the stimuli to the animal) and the so called blind zone depicted in red. This is likely a flawed conceptuality, as well.

7

Notice in figure 4 that there are at least three zones depending on the relative position

of the object from the animal. Also notice that the shape and bias of the zones are dependent

on the direction of the ears and eyes of the animal. If the ears and eyes are directed forward,

the zones bias forward. In Figures 4 to 5, if the head of the animal turns the zones bias

depending on the direction of the ears, eyes relative to the head. Animal head position also

shifts the so-called blind zone, as well.

Figure 5. Notice the shifting or bias of the various zones

when the head and subsequently the ears and eyes of the animal move.

Contemporary science has refined the old “flight and fight” concept where run, hide,

fight is fundamentally different than freeze, flee, avoidance and aggression. Even flies freeze

first and it is likely under hormonal control. Freezing might be a defense mechanism for making

the object of a challenge less detectable.iv This reconceptualization is important because

animals appear not to be able to limit freezing especially where learning or habituation may not

take freezing to extinction. In the final analysis the fight and flight, circles around circles around

objects, is better represented, but likely still flawed conceptually, by a multidimensional series

of concentric areas biased to the front when the ears and eyes and face are directed to the

front. Future research is intended to show that if a ring, line, or zone exists, it is more efficient

to describe it as being associated with the object and not around the animal investigating it.

This is possible because learning can constantly change the zones around the animal whereas

the object encroaching or withdrawing is a relatively consistent stimulus if the motion, rate, and

angle of movement remain constant. Familiarity and the learning from it create a dynamic

potential to a static fight or flight model. See figure 6. Innate and learned avoidance behaviors

intermix Pavlovian, stimulus paired to a stimulus, and instrumental, stimulus paired to a

response learning.v The critical feature distinguishing escape behavior resulting from a novel or

startling stimulus represented by the classic flight or fight model and learned avoidance

behavior represented by measurable avoidance distances are interesting areas for future

discovery.

8

(Figure 6.) The Tabola Effect™ and Tabola Concept©. The animal reaction is based on emitter object presence and action

and receiver prior and current learning coupled with innate behaviors.

The animal can avoid the stimulus or even turn to aggression to defend against the

challenge. In practical terms, as a human approaches livestock, from some distance, the animal

begins to perceive stimulus from human encroachment. The exact escape distance and the

extent of the response to human presence may vary animal to animal or within the same

animal depending on the various factors influencing the animal, such as, prior animal

experiences, previous human interaction, learned behaviors moment to moment, the distance

between the human and animal, natural or artificial boundaries, influencing husbandry

practices, age of the animal, other competing environment stimuli, health and well-being of the

animal(s) in general, and even the time of day.

By closely observing the senses-based learning and the response of the animal

approached, livestock handlers can be able to witness, document and learn from the effects of

the stimulus presence and action on animal behavior. See figures 1-6. The most consistent

mistake that animal handlers, veterinarians, academics and activists make about human and

animal interaction is when they conflate behavioral responses and the effects of learned

behavior with mental motivations or better said, animal emotion (feelings as conscious

awareness). Lisa Barrett describes this conflation of terms as “A Mental Inference Fallacy.”vi

Every interaction between people and cows can shape the future behavior of both.

These interactions can be efficient or inefficient but are very rarely neutral. The concept of

stockmanship, or low-energy handling of livestock helps people become aware of human

behavior and the impact it has on livestock. With efficient handling cattle are easier to work

and move and that creates a desirable environment for both cattle and people. In the dairy

industry people interact with cows several times a day and these situations present

opportunities to create efficient, human and animal interactions.

9

Cows tend to move in an arc around a stimulus. With a propensity to move most

efficiently forward where the ears and eyes position the nose and mouth for sensing and

consuming an immobile energy and water source, arcing around stimuli potentially allows them

to keep at least one eye and an ear on what is stimulating them. Socially, some cattle tend to

follow other cattle. These two concepts are invaluable when emptying a cattle pen or loading a

transport with cattle. If the handler can create efficient motion at the front of the herd and

then avoid doing anything to slow or stop the flow, cows will tend to move in the direction they

are facing while following the cow in front of them, if applicable. If, for example, handlers are

moving animals into the parlor, the task will be accomplished more efficiently if the handler

induces the animals to face the opening into the parlor. If the handler causes the animals to

turn back toward the crowd gate, flow stops and the cattle tend to bunch. Handlers need to pay

close attention to their position in relationship to the direction of cow movement. It is most

important not to over-stimulate or to apply stimulus in an unpredictable manner to the animal.

Extreme examples of over-stimulation are shouting, arm waiving, and hitting animals or using

electric prods to get them to move. Cows do not respond efficiently when over-stimulated, they

exhibit agitation and may run potentially leading to harm. These examples of too much stimulus

can be called high-energy cow handling techniques.

Herding a cow efficiently involves the right approach angle, speed, and timing. There is

no complicated or magic formula. The cow’s behavior will inform the handler if the angle,

speed, and timing were correct. If she didn’t respond as the handler intended, then the handler

should back along the same line as the approach, change the angle and the speed of approach.

However, one concept has universal importance in moving cattle and it is that driving cattle

from directly behind them, in their blind spot, causes the animal to turn and face the handler in

order to get at least one eye on the stimulus. That handling mistake stops the forward motion

of cattle because a cow tends not to walk far with her head turned. Cows seem to follow their

eyes.

Cows walk at about two-miles per hour (mph) while people tend to walk about three to

four mph. Handlers walking at their normal pace and parallel with cows will eventually overtake

the cow, first slowing them and then stopping forward motion altogether. Handlers need to

recognize this and slow their walking speed in order to move at the same pace as calm cows.

Since it generally takes more stimulus to start a cow moving than it does to keep her moving,

once cow motion begins the handler should slow or pause momentarily in order to create some

distance between themselves and the moving cow. The handler then continues to apply only

the stimulus needed to keep the cow moving calmly. Over-stimulating in order to start motion

or during movement frequently causes cows to over-react and run. This is often seen when

moving heifers.

Walking parallel against the flow of cows tends to speed them.

10

This works because cows tend to go the direction they are facing and they tend to move

away from the human stimulus; especially the human face and eyes. Walking parallel against

the flow of cattle can help load or unload a chute, transport, or parlor, and is valuable when

encouraging cows to exit the return alley. If more than one person is in the vicinity of the same

animal or group of animals, it is best that one person stimulates at a time. With two or more

handlers, it is very easy to apply conflicting stimulus to the cattle. Understandably, this would

result in conflicting stimuli to the cows and results in poor communication to the animal.

Consistent handling methods allow the cows to know what will happen next and that seems to

have a calming effect on herd animals.

A good time to work animals is when they first arrive to a new pen or facility. Examples

of this are during weaning of heifers from hutches into group pens or immediately after

springing heifers arrive at a facility new to them. Spending 10-20 minutes allows handlers to

develop a calm relationship with the new cattle while introducing the animals to the new

environment. This also creates a great opportunity to examine those animals for any health

problems.

As people learn to apply stockmanship skills on cattle operations a frequent question

arises about what to do with new cattle? As simple as it may sound, the answer is that the

behavior of the animals will tell handlers what should done with them. For example, if cattle

11

run, back and forth or circle non-stop, the handlers need to slow that motion. If the cows bunch

in a corner and have no movement, a handler or at most a few handlers should create slow

movement that involves teaching new cattle to accept human stimulus. This also helps animals

learn the boundaries of their new confinement while teaching them where food and water

exists. Each time cattle are worked efficiently they learn and become easier to work the next

time. That is to say that animals learn calm handling if handled calmly. When livestock

operations only consider working cattle if specific tasks are to be accomplished (such as

vaccinating) a conflicting impression of handling can be imprinted in the cows’ memory.

Naturally, conflicting interactions can make cows become harder to handle over time.

Frequently, we find that the older cows in a herd can be difficult to move. We must understand

that their current behavior is the sum total of the interactions with humans over her lifetime;

efficient and conflicting.

Effective handling

The primary objective of effective handling is to get the job done irrespective of any unintended

consequences, but don’t confuse effective with efficient. Young bovines raised in a restricted

space, such as a stall, have a tendency to run everywhere when given access to a relatively

large area. Handlers turn the bovine loose in a round pen and then make it circle or even chase

the bovine with the intention to burn off some of its unspent energy. This teaches the bovine to

run every time it encounters a human. It works for the bovine: it is rewarding because they get

away. Teaching bovines to run gives the appearance that the animal is “happy” to be chased,

but when a prey animal is chased, stress responses rise. The chase may have been effective in

providing exercise, just not in keeping the animal calm. Effective methods for handling animals

are found everywhere there are bovines and have been for thousands of years. They may get

the intended job done, but they might coincidently teach an undesired lesson too. Descriptions

of effective techniques are often anthropomorphic and circuitous.4 As an example, “the bovine

is fearful and her fear causes her to pull away, and the reason we know she is fearful is because

she is pulling away.” Instead of trying to define what the bovine is thinking or feeling, because

we truly will never know, it is better to define the specific behavior. Then we can try to figure

out what triggers it. In the previous example, fear is not the cause of the bovine pulling away

but an aspect of its response to events in the environment. As a second illustration, a bovine is

observed trying to escape from the entrance of the stall. Though she is incapable of telling us

why she is struggling to escape from the entrance, a bovine turning away from the stall

entrance could be as simple as a naturally occurring avoidance behavior to the new

environment. It could also be a learned avoidance behavior resulting from a previous negative

experience in the stall, such as has happened with phantom voltage electrifying a feeder. Or,

the escape behavior could be a learned behavior precipitated by some prior transport loading

12

event where the bovine had attempted to escape, was restrained, and struggled. In this case

the struggle is associated with being restrained and the bovine learned to avoid entrances that

had a header at the top of the opening.

Efficient handling

Efficient handling gets the job done using the least time and effort while avoiding the unintended consequences; resource resourceful. If the rationale and methods are efficient, they are also effective. However, the reverse is not necessarily true. In practical applicants, efficient handling means there is minimal stress response to the bovine, and coincidentally to the handler. Discussions of techniques that use “pressure and release” are more like an “on/off” than slow and steady. Descriptions of “psychological pressure” are hypothetical inferences based on analogy. Only if the human is actually touching the animal is “pressure” an accurate term. Efficient techniques applied when physically touching livestock and selectively touching bovines in specific areas are as important as is the method and manner of approaching livestock.11 The release component of “pressure and release” philosophy should be replaced by the more efficient “reduction” of the stimulus instead. “Release” of a stimulus implies “to set free.” It is a total release of a given stimulus in a relatively short time. Releasing the stimulus eliminates the ability to manage a bovine’s behavior continuously. Release can be interpreted by the animal as a lesson to move a few steps and then stop. The handler may not have meant to teach the bovine this unnecessary start-stop pattern, but he did. Reduction of stimulus allows the handler to continuously manage the stimulus presence and intensity. The bovine’s response to a stimulus is directed by uninterrupted human action and that results in the bovine’s reaction being directed rather than corrected with no interruption. That is efficient.

The basis for proprietary efficient low-energy handling is that micromanagement of human presence and action is used to continuously manage animal reaction with a safe, intended outcome as the result. The intensity of the stimulus is managed or specifically prompted uninterrupted throughout the process of handling. Movement and learning are controllable, manageable, and as a result predictable by handler and target animals. Efficient handling reveals more value for the effort than does effective handling because bovines learn from every interaction with humans. The efficient handler will devise methods that prevent an escaping or aggressive bovine from doing so or retrain the escape/aggression prone bovine. Retraining is almost always more difficult to accomplish than is preventing the problem behavior in the first place. Pressure and release Efficient handling applies a stimulus based on need and not an “all-on or all-off” approach. Animals that are inadvertently taught to move a few steps and then stop, as happens with tail-twitching or the use of the electric prod, is an example of what happens when a stimulus is applied and then stopped—like and on-off light switch. The handler may not have meant to teach the animal this unnecessary stopping, but he did. Applying a stimulus in this manner is

13

referred to as the “pressure and release” method. The technique is to apply a pressure to the animal causing it to react.

The senses of the animal take in the stimulus and the animal’s innate and/or learned behaviors provide the reaction. “Stimulus at distance” can be applied to untouched animals because their vision, hearing, and smell capabilities provide information to the cow about the distant human stimulus. If the human is close enough to directly or indirectly touch the animal, then “physical pressure” is an accurate term. Efficient techniques applied by physically touching cattle and selectively touching specific areas are as important as is the method and manner of approaching livestock.8 Timing, warning, angle of approach for touching, specific contact location, and diffuse verses focal touching are critical elements in successful, safe physical contact with animals.

Release of pressure philosophy teaches that once the stimulus pressure begins the desired action, the stimulus is stopped—the “release.” Just as with the light switch analogy, the release stops the human stimulus on the cow, and she typically slows or stops. Often, she then checks her surroundings. This creates a start-stop reaction in cattle and not a smooth flow.

Pressure and reduce

The “release” component of the “pressure and release” philosophy can be replaced by the more efficient “reduction” of stimulus description of directing or managing animal behavior. Releasing the stimulus eliminates the ability to constantly manage the animal’s behavior. Reducing the stimulus allows the handler to continuously manage the stimulus presence and intensity. The resulting animal reaction is managed and directed rather than corrected, and there is no interruption. This is efficient. In this manner, an animal’s response to stimulus is micromanaged using negative reinforcement. There is no need to correct behavior. Micromanagement with the human actions is analogous to the rheostat control in the light’s dimmer switch. The rheostat stimulus allows for uninterrupted or continuous animal stimulation and learning that are controllable and manageable.

Effective method proponents suggest that humans develop techniques for animal

training because we purport to know what animals want, think, and feel. That is not currently

possible and subsequently is not helpful either. Why worry about what cows think? It promotes

guessing at what to do instead of developing handling strategies that are founded in what we

know about animal behavior. Efficient handlers understand that animals can learn to distinguish

between relevant and irrelevant stimuli. It is important to understand that we train animals

from the perspective of their ability to learn. Handlers who concern themselves with what the

cows are doing rather than what the animals are thinking are vastly more efficient at creating

and managing animal flow in any facility.

Key Summary Points:

14

• A 2017 published series of journal articles from a University of British Columbia survey reports that agriculture industry education intended to align consumer views with industry methods will not be successful. Consumers believe that cows and calves should stay together for natural bonding and all livestock animals should have access to pasture.vii

• The five-freedoms of animal welfare apply primarily to things humans’ grade subjectively, (i.e.; pain, hunger, thirst, fear, comfort, normal or natural behaviors, and perhaps distress).

• Grading involves categories external to the object; “in the eye of the evaluator.”viii

• Well-being applies to observable and measurable health-care – including species-typical behaviors; grading is not measuring.

• Measuring is a non-subjective procedure involving physical objects and their features.ix

• Animal behavior is defined as anything a live animal does that can be observed; inside and outside the skin (covering).x Overt behaviors are observable. Covert behaviors are known only to the creature experiencing them.xi

• “Contracting a muscle is a movement, freezing is a behavior;” and not an emotion. “The feeling of fear is about an experience; unobservable.” “Circuitry that controls freezing [behavior] is not circuitry that controls fear [in humans].” “This scientific misunderstanding has sown confusion for decades.”xii

• Four behavior forms apply in animals; innate reflexes, innate reactions, learned actions and learned habits.xiii

• Natural or innate behaviors (reflexes and reactions) are not a product of learning - but can be influenced by learning.xiv

• Learned escape behavior is often confused with learned avoidance behaviorxv; avoidance can be innate too.

15

• Learned escape inactivates the (US) and learned avoidance inactivates the (CS) & omits the (US).xvi

• Behavioral and physiological responses are not ‘emotion’ but, they contribute to emotions indirectly and sometimes profoundly - in humans.xvii

• The subjective emotional experience, the feeling, is the essence of emotion in humans.xviii

• The objective manifestations of overt behavior and physiology are, at best, indirect indicators of covert internal experiences, in humans.xix

• Whether non-verbal animals have emotion is a difficult, maybe impossible, question to answer in the positive or the negative.xx

• “I’m surprised when scientists today simply assume that animals have conscious experiences [i.e., sentience; emotion as feelings] and build this assumption into their research as if it were a hard fact.”xxi

• Everyone seems to know what emotion is until asked to define it. Without a definition, emotion is hard to study.xxii

• The lack of language and culture, and the differences in sensory capabilities mean that animals cannot experience the world the way humans do. Animal experiences are unique to them. That also means that animal feelings, whatever they might be, cannot be the same.xxiii

• Non-verbal reporting of emotion is the only option in non-verbal (non-human) organisms, which makes determining whether other animals have conscious, subjective experiences challenging.xxiv

• Scientific assessments of inner experiences require some form of self-reporting. While other methods of reporting that do not require verbal report have been proposed, these also depend on introspection.xxv

• Understanding what animals think or feel is unknown. This does not deny conscious awareness in non-human animals.xxvi

• Conflating a mental state word, such as, ‘fear’ with a behavior like freezing, fleeing, or aggression is a “mental inference fallacy.”xxvii

• Emotion in humans is not observed, it is constructed.xxviii

• “Emotions are not innately programmed into our brains, but, in fact, are cognitive states resulting from the gathering of information.”xxix

16

• “Animal emotions, as described by humans, are hypothetical explanations of invisible, in fact, inaccessible mental phenomenon going on inside the mind or the brain of the animal.”xxx

• The reality of animal emotion is, for the moment, only within ourselvesxxxi; “my brain constructed my experience of emotion.

• Emotion in humans is likely learned, not inherited as a basic brain function.xxxii

• Emotion in animals is likely unknowable; without denying animal emotion.xxxiii

• A contemporary definition of emotion in humans implicates cognitive, cortical functions involving conscious awareness, working memory and language. Subcortical ingredients can contribute yet none of those implications denies or confirms emotion in animals.xxxiv

• Emotions, or feelings, actually derive from our cortical circuits, unique human

features not seen in other animals. This finding has broad implications for how

we approach our understanding—and in particular, how to treat—these often-

problematic emotions.”xxxv

• “Even after a century of effort, scientific research has not revealed a consistent, physical fingerprint for even a single emotion;” in humans.xxxvi

• “The possibility of a common “Anger” (or similar concept) experienced by dogs is vanishingly remote.”xxxvii

• “Emotions do not cause these [physical measurements] actions in any objective, perceiver-independent sense.”xxxviii

17

• “Progress has stalled in treatment development for fear and anxiety mental disorders.”xxxix

• Survival requires that all animals defend against challenges, take advantage of opportunities; obtain nutrients, balance fluids and electrolytes, thermo-regulate, and reproducexl; all non-conscious behaviors; none require feelings – conscious awareness or emotion.xli

• Creature consciousness suggests that animals are awake, alert, can learn, and are able to solve complex problems; none requiring conscious awareness.xlii

• The non-conscious assumption explaining animal behavior is preferable to the conscious assumption; without denying emotions in animals.”xliii

• Affective States in neuroscience are considered by some to be hypothetical response/action/output programs and other researchers, such as, Lisa Barrett consider them as feelings that are not emotions (i.e., affect pleasure sensations). There exist stimulus interoceptions (internal sensations) and exteroceptions (external sensations), but they are not emotion states, rather they are ingredients contributing to human emotions.xliv

• “It is doubtful that emotion circuits exist in any animal brain;” human or not.xlv

18

Source: “Anxious,” LeDoux, 2015.

• “Taken together, these findings call the classical view of emotion into doubt.”xlvi

• “The first thing I began to do is to ignore a lot of people who think that all you need is anthropomorphism, that the ethical basis of treating animals lies on just saying they're a bit like us, and therefore we should treat them like us. Actually, that argument is quite dangerous. It leads to a sort of way of thinking that says anything goes. Anybody can just make anything up and say that that's what is the case."xlvii

• “Cognitive bias does not equal consciously felt emotional experience in humans.”xlviii

• A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion. Individuals create their own "subjective social reality" from their perception of the input.xlix

• Animal personality and temperament are scientifically difficult to assess; behavior is observable and documentable.l

• The words pressure applies when the animal’s pressure receptors are stimulated; psychological pressure in animals is unknown.li Stepping toward a cow is and creates stimulus.

• Trial, error, and reinforcement prompts most learning in livestock.lii

• What an animal is doing matters; when may help handlers determine why.

• Emotion labels (i.e., fear, anxiety, pleasure, happy, friendly, sad, respect, trust) involve subjective grading; often reflect the bias of the researcher.liii

• Well-being measurements can help remove guessing from the welfare debate.liv

• All memory theorists agree, “memory is not a videotape recording.”lv

• Originally, researchers were referring to “freezing and fleeing behavior” when referencing fear;lvi an egregious mental inference fallacy.lvii

• The conventional use of the emotion word fear is often conflated with behavioral responses, in humans and animalslviii; correlation does not imply causation.lix

• Learned avoidance behavior can supplement innate reflexes and reactions.lx

19

• Farm animals can learn to avoid certain humans and places.lxi

• Currently, no evidence confirms that animals understand their training or human intention.lxii

• Live animals can react to human presence and action in any environment.

• Safe and efficient, practical, low-energy animal handling is a site-specific human resource’s endeavor.

• Effective works currently. Efficient is safe, practical and is the best use of resources; time, money, and lives.

• Stress has no accepted biological definition. There is no current litmus test for stress. Science measures the response to opportunities and challenges.

• Animal Signals is an oxymoron; body language is not a language. Behavior can be observed, inside and outside the skin.lxiii

• Aggression in animals has at least 3 forms: around reproduction, around nutrition, and when escape or avoidance fails; all separate circuits.

20

• An active “fear” response, a behavior referred to as “darting,” has been identified in female rats and is also often observed in female heifers in group pens.lxiv

References Brown RE. 1994. An introduction to neuroendocrinology, chapters 1-4, Cambridge University Press, p. 1-55. Cohen S, Kessler R, Gordon LU. Measuring Stress: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists. (1997, Oxford University Press) ISBN 978-0-19-512120-9 Hansen SW, Malmkvist J, Palme R, Damgaard BM. 2007. Do double cages and access to occupational material improve the welfare of farmed mink? Anim. Welf. 16, 63-76 Hayward LS, Wingfield (2004). Maternal corticosterone is transferred to avian yolk and may alter offspring growth and adult phenotype. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 135, 365-371. Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Tilbrook, A.J., Hansen, C., 1989. The Effects of Handling by Humans at Calving and During Milking on the Behaviour and Milk Cortisol Concentrations of Primiparous Dairy Cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 22, 313-326. Hemsworth, P.H., Coleman, G.J., Barnett, J.L., Borg, S., 2000. Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 78, 2821-2831. Hemsworth, P.H., 2007. Ethical stockmanship. Aust. Vet. J. 85, 194-200. Herskin MS, Jensen KH. 2002. Effects of open field testing and associated handling v. handling alone on the adrenocortical reactivity of piglets around weaning. J. Anim. Sci. 74, 485-491. Jarvis S, Moinard C, Robson SK, Baxter E, Ormandy E, Douglas AJ, Seckl JR, Russell JA, Lawrence AB. 2006. Programming the offspring of the pig by prenatal social stress: Neuroendocrine activity and behaviour. Horm. Behav. 49: 68-80. Jensen P, Toates FM. 1997. Stress as a state of motivational systems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 53, 145-156. Jensen P, Andersson L. 2005. Genomics meets ethology: A new route to understanding domestication, behavior, and substainability in animal breeding. Ambio 34, 320-324. Joëls M, Karst H, DeRijk R, de Kloet ER. 2007. The coming out of the brain mineralocorticoid receptor. Trends Neurosci. 31, 1-7.

21

Laviola G, Hannan AJ, Macrí S, Solinas M, Jaber M. 2008. Effects of enriched environment on animal models of neurodegenerative diseases and psychiatric disorders. Neurobiol. Disease 31, 159-168. Macrí S, Mason GJ, Würbel H. 2004. Dissociation in the effects of neonatal maternal separations on maternal care and the offspring’s HPA and fear responses in rats. Eur. J. Neurosci. 20, 1017-1024. Macrí S, Pasquali P, Bonsignore LC, Pieretti S, Cirulli F, Chiarotti F, Laviola G. 2007. Moderate neonatal stress decreases within-group variation in behavioural, immune and HPA responses in adult mice. PLoS ONE 2(10): e1015. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001015., 1-9 Macrí S, Würbel H. 2006. Developmental plasticity of HPA and fear responses in rats: A critical review of the maternal mediation hypothesis. Horm. Behav. 50, 667-680. Malmkvist J, Damgaard BM, Pedersen LJ, Jørgensen E, Thodberg K, Chaloupkova H, Bruckmaier, RM. 2009. Effects of thermal environment on HPA-axis hormones, oxytocin and behavioral activity in periparturient sows. J. Anim. Sci. 87, 2796-2805. Malmkvist J, Palme R. 2008. Periparturient nest building: implications for parturition, kit survival, maternal stress and behaviour in farmed mink (Mustela vison). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 114, 270-283. Mateo JM, Cavigelli SA. 2005. A validation for extraction methods for noninvasive sampling of glucocorticoids in free-living ground squirrels. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 78, 1069-1084. Mellor DJ, Cook CJ, Stafford KJ. 2000. Quantifying some responses to pain as a stressor. Chap. 9 in GP Moberg and JA Mench (eds.), The biology of animal stress, CAB international, 171-198. Herskin MS, Munksgaard L, Ladewig J. 2004. Effects of acute stressors on nociception, adrenocortical responses and behaviour of dairy cows. Physiol. Behav. 83, 411-420. Heistermann M, Palme R, Ganswindt A. Comparison of Different Enzymeimmunoassays for Assessment of Adrenocortical Activity in Primates Based on Fecal Analysis. American Journal of Primatology 68:257–273 (2006) Moberg GP. 2000. Biological response to stress: Implications for animal welfare. Chapter 1 in GP Moberg and JA Mench (eds), The biology of Animal Stress, CAB international, p. 1-21. Mormede P, Andanson S, Auperin B, Beerda B, Guemene D, Malmkvist J, Manteca X, Manteuffel G,Prunet P, van Reenen CG, Richard S, Veissier I. 2007. Exploration of the hypothalamic-pituitaryadrenal function as a tool to evaluate animal welfare. Physiol. Beh. 92, 317-339.

22

Morrow CJ, Kolver ES, Verkerk GA, Matthews LR. Fecal Glucocorticoid Metabolites as a Measure of Adrenal Activity in Dairy Cattle. General and Comparative Endocrinology 126, 229-241 (2002) Möstl E, Rettenbacher S, Palme R. 2005. Measurement of corticosterone metabolites in birds’ droppings: An analytical approach. Annals New York Acad. Sci. 1046, 17-34. Palme R. 2005. Measuring fecal steroids: Guidelines for practical application. Annals New York Acad. Sci. 1046, 75-80. Palme R, Rettenbacher S, Touma C, El-Bahr SM, Möstl E. 2005. Stress hormones in mammals and birds: Comparative aspects regarding metabolism, excretion and noninvasive measurement in fecal samples. Trends in Comparative Endocrinology and Neurobiology. Annals New York Acad. Sci. 1040, 162-171. Palme R, Robia C, Baumgartner W, Mostl E. Transport stress in cattle as reflected by an increase in faecal cortisol metabolite concentrations. Veterinary Record (2000) 146, 108-109 Parker KJ, Maestripieri D. 2010. Identifying key features of early stressful experiences that produce stress vulnerability and resilience in primates. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. In press, doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.09.003. 18pp Sapolsky RM. 2002. Endocrinology of the Stress-Response. Chapter 11 in J. B. Becker, M. Breedlove, D. Crews, M. M. McCarty, Behavioral Endocrinology. 2nd edition. MIT Press, London, UK. Sapolsky, R. Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers (1994, Holt/Owl 3rd Rep. Ed. 2004) ISBN 978-0-8050-7369-0 Touma C, Palme R. 2005. Measuring fecal glucocorticoid metabolites in mammals and birds: The importance of validation. Annals New York Acad. Sci. 1046, 54-74. Selye H. 1936. A syndrome produced by diverse nocuous agents. Nature 138, 32. Weis JM. 1968. Effects of coping responses on stress. J. Comp. Phsyiol. Psychol. 65, 251-260. Weis JM. 1971. Effect of coping behaviour in different warning signal conditions on stress pathology in rats. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 77, 1-13. Wolfer DP, Litvin O, Morf S, Nitsch RM, Lipp H-P, Würbel H. 2004. Cage enrichment and mouse behaviour. Nature 432, 821-822 Additional References

23

1. 2011 National Beef Quality Audit:

http://www.bqa.org/CMDocs/bqa/NBQA_Significant_Findings.pdf , 3/1/2013.

2. Boivin, X., Marcantognini, L., Boulesteix, P., Godet, J. Brulé, A. and Veissier, I (May 2007): Attitudes of farmers towards Limousin cattle and their handling. Animal Welfare 16 (2): 147-151.

3. Bowerman, M., and Levinson, S.C. eds. (2001): Language Acquisition and Conceptual

Development. Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 602.

4. Broom, D.M. and Fraser, A.F. (2007): Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 4th ed. CAB International:Cambridge, MA, pp.438

5. Fraser, D. (Nov. 2003): Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: The

interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12 (4): 433-443.

6. Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S. eds. (2003): Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, pp. 528.

7. Grandin, T. (May 2003): Transferring results of behavioral research to industry to

improve animal welfare on the farm, ranch and the slaughter plant. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81 (3): 215-228.

8. Hemsworth, P.H. (May 2, 2003): Human-animal interactions in livestock production.

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81 (3): 185-198.

9. Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, J.L., Beveridge, L. and Matthews, L.R. (Feb. 1995): The welfare of extensively managed dairy cattle: A review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42 (3): 161-182.

10. LeDoux, J.E. (Feb. 25, 2014): Coming to terms with fear. Proceedings of the national

Academy of Sciences 111 (8): 2871-2878.

11. Rajeshwari, Y.B. (2009): Handbook on Care and Management of Laboratory Animals and Pet Animals. New India Publishing: New Delhi, pp. 302.

12. Sapolsky, R.M. (2002): Endrocrinology of the stress-response. In Behavioral

Endocrinology, 2nd ed., J.B. Becker, M. Breedlove, D. Crews, and M.M. McCarty, eds., MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, pp. 574.

13. Whorf, B.L. (1956): Language, Thought, and Reality. Technology Press of MIT:

Cambridge, MA, pp. 304.

24

Endnotes:

i Contributions from “Dairy stockmanship” by Paul Rapnicki and Don Höglund, 2010-2012. ii Drew Rendall, Michael J. Owren, Michael J. Ryan, “What do animal signals mean?” 2009 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.007 iii Gilger, B. “Equine Ophthalmology. Wiley, 2016. ISBN: 978-1-119-04774-2 iv LeDoux, J. “Run, Hide, Fight is not how our brain works.” New York Times, Sunday Review, December 18, 2015. v LeDoux, J. et, al.

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2016166a.html vi Barrett, L., “How emotions are made.” vii Busch, G, Von Kyeserlingk et al, University of British Columbia, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174013 viii LeDoux, J.E. (July, 2015): “Anxious.” Viking. Pg. 131. ix Ibid. x Chance, P. “Applied Behavior Analysis.” Waveland Press, 2006. Pg. 6. xi Ibid. xii Barrett, L. “How Emotions Are Made.” Macmillan, Air Iri One. March, 2017. Pg. 273. xiii J E LeDoux1,2,3, J Moscarello1,3, R Sears1 and V Campese1. The birth, death and resurrection of avoidance: a reconceptualization of a troubled paradigm. Molecular Psychiatry advance online publication 18 October 2016; doi: 10.1038/mp.2016.166 xiv Ibid. xv Ibid. xvi Ibid xvii LeDoux, J., Hofmann, S. “The subjective experience of emotion; a fearful view.” Current Opinion in Behavior Science. Volume 19, February, 2018. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.09.011. xviii Ibid. xix Ibid. xx Ibid. xxi LeDoux, J.E. (July, 2015): “Anxious.” Viking. xxii Russell, JA. (1984): “Core Affect and the Psychological Construction of Emotion.” American Psychological Association. DOI: 10.1037.oo33.295x.110.1.145. Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1984). Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 464–486. xxiii Beaver, B. (November 2015): “Safe and Efficient Livestock Handling: Practical Applications of Animal Welfare and Behavioral Science.” Elsevier Academic Press. Pp.XII.

25

xxiv LeDoux, J., Hofmann, S. “The subjective experience of emotion; a fearful view.” Current Opinion in Behavior Science. Volume 19, February, 2018. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.09.011. xxv Ibid. xxvi LeDoux, J. E. (April 2013): The Slippery Slope of Fear. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Vol, 17, No. 4. Pages 155-156. xxvii Barrett, L. “How Emotions Are Made.” Macmillan, Air Iri One. March, 2017. Pg. 273. xxviii Barrett, L. “How Emotions Are Made.” Macmillan, Air Iri One. March, 2017. Pg. 274. xxix LeDoux, J., Brown, R. Science Daily, “emotions are cognitive, not innate…” www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170215121100.htm xxx Peterson, Gail. UMN. Personal email to the author. xxxi Ibid. xxxii Joseph E. LeDoux, Richard Brown. A higher-order theory of emotional consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2017; 201619316 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1619316114. xxxiii Ledoux, J.E., Brown, R., “A higher-order theory of emotional consciousness.” 2017. www.PNAS.org/cgi/doi/10-1073. xxxiv LeDoux, J.E. (July, 2015): “Anxious.” Viking. xxxv Ledoux, J.E. (February, 2018) Smithsonian Institution. https://smithsonianassociates.org/ticketing/tickets/facing-fear xxxvi Barrett, L. “How Emotions Are Made.” Macmillan, Air Iri One. March, 2017. Pg. 56. xxxvii Ibid. Pg. 265. xxxviii Ibid. Page 273.

xxxix LeDoux, J., Pine, D. Oct. 2016. “Using neuroscience to understand fear.” http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16030353. xl LeDoux, J.E. (January, 2014): National Academy of Sciences. Coming to Terms with Fear. Pages 1-8. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas1400335111 xli Ibid. xlii Ibid. xliii Ibid. xliv LeDoux, J.E. (July, 2015): “Anxious.” Viking. xlv Barrett, L. “How Emotions Are Made.” Macmillan, Air Iri One. March, 2017. Pg. 276. xlvi P. Ekman, Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion, in: J. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1971, vol. 19, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1972, pp. 207–282. From: L.F. Barrett, A.B. Satpute / Neuroscience Letters xxx (2017) xxx–xxx. Elsevier Academic Press. http://www.affective-science.org/pubs/2017/barrett-pitfalls-2017.pdf. xlvii Dawkins, M., Oxford University. www.edge.org/conversation/marian_stamp_dawkins-what-do-animals-want. xlviii LeDoux, J.E. (July, 2015): “Anxious.” Viking. xlix Ibid. l Beaver, B. (November 2015): “Safe and Efficient Livestock Handling: Practical Applications of Animal Welfare and Behavioral Science.” Elsevier Academic Press. Pp. 47. li LeDoux, J.E. (July, 2015): “Anxious.” Viking.

26

lii Beaver, B. (November 2015): “Safe and Efficient Livestock Handling: Practical Applications of Animal Welfare and Behavioral Science.” Elsevier Academic Press. Chapter 4. liii Ibid. liv McGreevy, P. (October 2012): “Equine Behavior: A Guide for Veterinarians and Equine Scientists,” Saunders Ltd. 2e. pp 378. lv Lutz, J. (September 2004): “Learning and Memory”, Waveland Press, Inc. 2nd edition, page 283, pp. 381. lvi J E LeDoux1,2,3, J Moscarello1,3, R Sears1 and V Campese1. The birth, death and resurrection of avoidance: a reconceptualization of a troubled paradigm. Molecular Psychiatry advance online publication 18 October 2016; doi: 10.1038/mp.2016.166 lvii Barrett, L. “How Emotions Are Made.” Macmillan, Air Iri One. March, 2017. Pg. 273. lviii LeDoux, J.E. Using Neuroscience to Help Understand Fear and Anxiety: A Two-System Framework. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16030353 lix Ibid. lx Ibid. lxi Rushen, J. Domestic animal’s fear of humans and it’s effect of their welfare.” J. Dairy Sci., 1999 Apr;82(4):720-7. lxii Beaver, B. (November 2015): “Safe and Efficient Livestock Handling: Practical Applications of Animal Welfare and Behavioral Science.” Elsevier Academic Press. Chapter 4. lxiii Drew Rendall, Michael J. Owren, Michael J. Ryan, “What do animal signals mean?” 2009 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.007 lxiv Gruen, T., Shansky, R. “Sexually divergent expression of active and passive conditioned fear responses. Northeastern University, 2015.