The Use of Behavioral Management Techniques to Reduce or
Eliminate Abnormal Behavior
October-December 1993) In the continuing quest to provide optimal care for animals in captivity, the issue of abnormal behaviors is a cause for concern. Whether we call them stereotypic, neurotic, nonadaptive, or atypical, behaviors of this kind are problematic. The consequences of abnormal behaviors range from unpleasant sights for the zoo visitor, as in the case of coprophagy in a resident gorilla, to serious health problems for the animals themselves, such as self-biting in a singly housed rhesus macaque. Animals exhibit abnormal behaviors in a variety of social and environmental contexts: naturalistic and purely functional, large social groupings and singly housed, enriched and sterile. No zoo, laboratory, or breeding facility, it would seem, is exempt. Neither is any species. One approach to dealing with abnormal behavior is through the use of behavioral management techniques. Behavioral management refers to the combined use of positive reinforcement training and environmental enrichment techniques. A variety of strategies to address abnormal behavior have been reported, and they tend to fall into three main categories: feeding manipulations including types of food and methods of feeding (Ruempler, 1991; Bloomsmith, 1988); environmental manipulations and provisioning of toys and apparatus (Bryant, et al., 1988; Fried, et al., 1993); and social manipulations (Reinhardt, 1987). These various strategies have produced mixed results. Unfortunately, even in the best case scenarios, abnormal behaviors are most often reduced, not eliminated. References to the use of training as an intervention for abnormal behavioral problems are still fairly rare (Morgan, et al., 1993; Kirtland, 1993). There are good reasons why efforts to reduce or eliminate abnormal behavior have limited success. First, the causes of abnormal behavior are often subtle and complex, and tracking down how and why the problem began can be a task worthy of Magnum P.I. Second, the relationship between real or perceived stressors and abnormal behavior can result in the behavior serving as a functional coping strategy for the animal (Gould and Bres, 1986). Once utilized as coping strategies, these behaviors are self-reinforcing and extremely tenacious in nature. Finally, problem behaviors often occur when people are not present, limiting the opportunity for direct intervention. So, what benefits can behavioral management techniques offer personnel dealing with abnormal behavior problems? The greatest benefit they provide is the means to systematically address abnormal behavior and the underlying behavioral issues. In its purest form, a behavioral management approach is a practical exercise in the scientific method. The following steps illustrate the process. 1. Collect data. This is the question-asking phase of the process. Discovering when, where, and how a behavior occurs, and in relation to what, will ultimately lead you to a best guess as to why it occurs, and provide the basis for effective intervention. Relevant information includes: - When does the behavior occur?; - Under what circumstances?; - Is there a pattern?; - What outside factors affect the behavior such as feeding or cleaning schedules, medical procedures, the presence of unfamiliar people, activities involving animals other than the target animal, the presence or absence of cage or exhibit furniture, and so on?; and - What impact do social dynamics have on the behavior such as the social status of the target animal, the lack of compatible conspecifics, the presence or absence of specific group members, and the level of positive and agonistic interactions within the group? The more objective the data, the better. Formal behavioral studies are ideal, but simple charts for when and how a behavior occurs, filled out by keepers or caregivers as they go about their daily activities, improve the quality of the information. 2. Develop a hypothesis. After a careful discovery process, a list of potential causes and contributing factors should be developed. Then, it's possible to make a guess as to why the abnormal behavior is occurring. For example, we could hypothesize that disruptive behavior by a chimpanzee, like throwing feces or trying to grab caregivers, is an attention-seeking behavior, whether the resulting attention is positive or negative. Or, we could guess that social pressure by the dominant male sea lion coupled with a predictable feeding routine are the underlying causes for a low-ranking sea lion regurgitating for extended periods of time after regularly scheduled feeds. The importance of a well-developed hypothesis is that it is the starting point from which your intervention plan is developed. 3. Identify specific behavioral goals and initiate training and enrichment strategies. With a clear hypothesis, you can design and implement an intervention plan to address targeted behaviors from a behavioral management perspective. For example, by definition, reinforcement increases the likelihood that a behavior will recur. In the case of the primate that utilizes disruptive behavior as an attention-seeking measure, look at the situation and determine where the reinforcement is occurring. More than likely, when the animal uses the disruptive behavior it receives a great deal of attention, probably negative, but attention none the less. Indeed, "displays" put on by frustrated humans who have just been "had" can be quite entertaining. But what is perhaps more relevant is what happens when the animal is not disruptive. Chances are the human walks right by. According to the hypothesis, human attention is the reinforcement the animal is seeking. So, when are the rewards occurring, and what are the results? Ironically, feces throwing and arm grabbing are being continuously reinforced, while non-aggressive cooperation is not being reinforced at all. The resultant behavior is consistent with the reinforcement pattern. The intervention strategy is then two fold. First, reinforce the animal when it is not disruptive. Stop for a moment, say a few words, offer a small treat or favored toy, reinforce cooperative behavior (fig. 1). Second, do not reinforce the disruptive behavior. Turn around, count to 10, or walk away, and then look for any opportunity to reinforce the desirable behavior. This is a straightforward, simplified example of the problem-solving process. However, it is amazing how often this pattern is repeated in a variety of contexts with similar results.
Fig. 1. Rewarding non-aggressive cooperation helps eliminate disruptive attention-seeking behaviors.
In the case of the regurgitating sea lion, strategies must be devised to address both contributing factors identified in the hypothesis. First, the socialization problem can be dealt with by utilizing a training technique called þcooperative feeding. Operationally, it entails reinforcing two events simultaneously: dominant animals are reinforced for allowing subdominant animals to work and receive food or attention, while the subdominant animals are reinforced for being þbraveþ enough to work and accept food or attention in the presence of these more aggressive animals. In this case, training would focus on the target animal and the dominant male (fig. 2). Second, the feeding schedule should be altered to make it less predictable. If times of feeds are on a set schedule, extra cooperative feeding sessions should be added in-between. Finally, enrichment strategies should be implemented in-between feeds to provide activity options other than regurgitation.
Fig. 2. Training can address socialization issues which are often contributing causes to abnormal behavior.
4. Check the results. There are no pat answers or guarantees in dealing with behavior, problematic or otherwise. It is dynamic in nature, and so much of what we do is guesswork. However, there are two processes that increase the likelihood of making the right guesses. First: the quality and extent of information gathered prior to initiating any workþthe data collection phase. That, coupled with knowledge of the individual animal, makes a carefully developed hypothesis an educated guess. Second: an on-going evaluation of information you get back from the activity. Is a particular strategy achieving the results that are anticipated? If the answer is yes, it's a good bet to stay with the current strategy. If the answer is no, it's time to reevaluate and perhaps try something else. 5. Adjust strategies if necessary. It is critical to maintain a realistic expectation of results, so a strategy is not abandoned too quickly, or sustained too long. If that occurs, the result can be a great deal of frustration and confusion for the animal, which may worsen the problem. When one approach has been tried for a sufficient length of time (a critical judgment call) without the desired results, try something else. Then, check results again, and continue to adjust strategies as necessary. In tough cases, it may be necessary to try several different strategies before one works. Or often, it will be a combination of strategies that finally achieves the desired results. That's why good behavioral management skills include a heavy dose of creativity, innovation, and most important, flexibility. The following are some specific examples of how behavioral management strategies have been used to decrease or eliminate abnormal behaviors. Over a period of 7 months, a pilot behavioral project was conducted with a group of drill baboons (Desmond, et al., 1987). The primary goal of the project was to increase positive social interactions and reproduction among the group members (fig. 3). There was also concern about a sub-adult male who had been introduced to the group 6 months previously and was shunned bythem. He often appeared stressed, and exhibited some abnormal behavior. Intervention was difficult due to the social dynamics within the group which made him and other subdominant animals inaccessible to the keepers for handling or husbandry purposes.
Fig. 3. Drill grooming behavior increased as a result of training.
A thorough information-gathering process was conducted, which included interviews with relevant personnel and assessment of behavioral observation data conducted on the group for the previous 2 years. Based on this information, a hypothesis was formulated. The hypothesis was that a long-term moderate state of sensory deprivation had existed in the exhibit. This shortage of stimulation had resulted in subtle competition among group members which, in turn, inhibited breeding, other positive social interactions, and interest in interacting with the environment. It also contributed to the presence of problematic behaviors by all group members including fence nibbling, self-biting, and examining and eating feces. Based on this hypothesis, the following behavioral goals and strategies were developed: 1. Increase overall sensory stimulation of the group through regular training sessions. 2. Increase positive social interactions in the group by cooperatively feeding animals in different dyads and triads, reinforcing them for eating and relaxing in close proximity to one another. 3. Increase keeper access to individual animals by establishing feeding stations and targets to control food intake, the movement of animals, and achieve voluntary separation. Although reducing abnormal behaviors was a goal, the training strategies were developed to address the underlying causes of these behaviors - insufficient sensory stimulation, and socialization problems. Operationally, the young male was often paired with an adult female for cooperative feeding sessions. She was reinforced for þstayingþ while he was given food and personal attention. He learned to gently touch the trainer's hand and arm, approximating grooming. He slowly became less nervous and agitated when eating with the female, and increasingly more relaxed. Prior to this project, he had been observed biting his leg in a manner and frequency that indicated the potential onset of neurotic behavior. Keepers familiar with the exhibit reported a significant reduction in the observance of the behavior throughout the training project. Documented results (table 1) showed significant increases in all forms of positive, social interactions during and following the project (Cox, 1987). Reduction in all forms of abnormal behavior was also achieved (table 2).
Note: Although aggressive behavior increased on an absolute level from before training to during training, it dropped from 34% to 25% of the total social interaction.
Another project illustrating the process of addressing abnormal behaviors involved a captive-born Bottlenose dolphin named Pepe (Laule, 1984). Living with a couple of other young animals, two separate attempts were made to integrate him into a larger social grouping of show animals. These attempts were unsuccessful, and in the process he developed several abnormal and problematic behaviors. These included an erratic appetite and attention span; biting people during unstructured play sessions; habitual regurgitation; and chronically swallowing objects that fell into the water. In researching Pepe's situation and history, several factors were identified which may have contributed to the development of these problem behaviors. First there were health-related problems, including the presence of small ulcers which could have affected his appetite and energy level. He had also sustained an injury to his peduncle area, which caused occasional swelling and which was under constant scrutiny. This was later diagnosed to be osteomyelitis and a source of his chronically high white blood cell counts. Another factor was his submissive behavior. Whenever he was introduced into the larger social group, despite his greater size, Pepe always aligned himself with the subdominant males and quickly became the lowest ranking animal. In that weak position, pressures were placed on him that he was apparently unable to cope with. Differences in training regimen from one condition to the other may have also been a factor. These changes included the loss of his one primary trainer and subsequent replacement by four new individuals. Behavioral charts indicate that in the second condition he was worked inconsistently, less often, and with less challenging work. In a period of almost 2 years, he learned only one new behavior while losing several others. He also received less personal attention. One last factor concerns the age at which Pepe was separated from his mother, and the impact that may have had on his subsequent development. Compared to the other five dolphins born at the park, Pepe's separation from his mother, at 18 months, was at a substantially earlier age. The average age of the other five animals was 29 months, with the youngest being 26 months and the oldest 33 months. Although I found no definitive research or conclusions on optimal age of separation, Herman notes, in his book Cetacean Behavior, þClose affiliation between the newborn and mother continues for an extended period of time and dependency may persist even into adulthoodþ (Herman, 1980). Whether this had an impact on Pepe's later problems is uncertain. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy, in light of the extensive research done by John Bowlby on early separation of young human children from their mothers and the far- reaching effects this has on personality and behavioral development (Bowlby, 1973). Once the potential causes and contributing factors were identified, a variety of strategies were employed to address each of the problematic conditions. Because of his delicate health, he was the first dolphin to be trained to present his tail flukes for blood sampling, and to accept a stomach tube and fecal tube insertion for sample collection. With his voluntary cooperation, it was easier and less stressful to perform these procedures and monitor his health on a regular and frequent basis. To help stabilize his eating habits, and to curb his throwing up, different feeding schedules were employed. For a period of 2 weeks, Pepe was fed twice nightly to increase his appetite and weight. Little change was noted. Next, a schedule of eight feeds per day was begun which continued for approximately 2 months. His normal diet was fed in small amounts over the course of the day, with at least three of the feeds being training sessions. Accurate charts were kept, listing the time of day, number of pounds fed, and the amount, if any, of regurgitation seen. This provided a clear picture of Pepe's eating and regurgitating habits, and the evidence of change when it did occur. Specific intervention for the regurgitation included using a verbal þnoþ and short time out when Pepe would regurgitate during or after his feeds. Extra time was spent with him immediately following a feed, during which time he was rewarded with attention and play for not regurgitating. To address both the problem biting and his habit of swallowing foreign objects, desensitization work was initiated to train him to allow us to touch his mouth, tongue, and teeth, without biting. At the same time, he was trained to retrieve safe objects like paper cups or paper towels, and then let us open his mouth and remove the objects from his mouth or throat. Third, with a trainer in the water with him, work was begun with Pepe, reinforcing him for gentle play and non-biting behavior. The reinforcement was high at first, then slowly reduced until reinforcement was no longer necessary at all. To assist in his socialization, he was specifically worked with each of the dominant animals. Pepe was encouraged and rewarded for participating in these sessions, while the dominant animal was rewarded for allowing him to do so. Conversely, if Pepe did not work, reinforcement was withheld from the other male until he did. Other behavioral strategies included maintaining consistency of trainers, keeping the number of daily training sessions high, and balancing sessions between individual work and work with other animals. Special care was also taken to provide Pepe with a lot of personal attention (fig. 4).
Fig. 4. Pepe received extra personal attention during interventions to address abnormal behaviors.
Finally, Pepe was moved to a different show area with four other animals. From the first day, consistency in trainers was maintained by having myself or another familiar trainer with him everyday. For the first 2 weeks, we spent all of our extra time with Pepe, just sitting with him, rubbing him down, or playing. For 2 months, we were present during shows and training sets to work exclusively with him. Concurrently, the other animals were reinforced for allowing Pepe to work, and any positive social interactions were reinforced. The results of these strategies were quite encouraging. Pepe was successfully integrated into the show. Socially, he appeared comfortable, interacting with all of the other animals and developing a strong bond with the female pilot whale, each displaying imitative behavior learned from the other. His biting stopped completely. He would allow us to open his mouth and remove any objects. Rubbing his mouth and tongue became his favorite tactile behavior. In fact, Pepe's overall responsiveness to people increased tremendously. He would now seek attention and interact gently and non-aggressively. His retrieval work improved, so that he would voluntarily return an item he found to the trainer, or retrieve a specific object we pointed to. His throwing up almost completely disappeared, with only an isolated occurrence being noted. His appetite and attention span, although occasionally erratic, improved greatly overall. He maintained his repertoire of behaviors and continued to learn others. The examples I described were ambitious attempts to address and resolve a complex set of problematic behavioral issues. These efforts required an investment of time and effort that may not be practical or possible in many situations. However, what is applicable to every situation is the process. It doesn't have to be complicated and tedious, but to some degree it has to be done. Abnormal behavior is not a simple problem, and there are rarely simple solutions. The greatest success in dealing with abnormal behavior will come from addressing the causes of the problem, not just the problem behavior itself. With that approach, there are often simple things that can be done to positively impact the situation to some degree (Bayne, et al., 1993). Behavior is an acknowledged indicator of well-being (Petto et al., 1990). When we strive to provide optimal care for captive animals by providing for their physical and psychological well-being, reducing or eliminating abnormal behavior is an issue that cannot be overlooked or shortchanged. For further information contact Active Environments Inc. 4478 Market Street, Suite 701 Ventura, CA 93001 Phone (805) 650-6464 Fax (805) 650-6467 References Bayne, K., Dexter, S., Strange, G. (1993). The Effects of Food Provisioning and Human Interaction on the Behavioral Well-being of Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Contemporary Topics (AALAS) 32(2):6-9. Bloomsmith, M., Alford, P., Maple, T. (1988). Successful Feeding Enrichment for Captive Chimpanzees. American Journal of Primatology 16:155-164. Bowlby, J. (1973). þAttachment and Loss. In Volume 2, Separation. Basic Books Inc., New York. Bryant,C., Rupniak, N., Iversen, S. (1988). Effects of Different Environmental Enrichment Devices On Cage Stereotypies and Autoaggression In Captive Cynomolgus Monkeys. Journal of Medical Primatology 17, 257-269. Cox, C. (1987). Increase In the Frequency of Social Interactions and the Likelihood of Reproduction Among Drills. Proceedings of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums Annual Conference, Portland, OR. Desmond, T., Laule, G., McNary, J. (1987). Training for Socialization and Reproduction with Drills. Proceedings of the American Association Zoological Parks and Aquariums Annual Conference, Portland, OR. Fried, J., Bennett, C., Lindsey, S. (1993). Assessment of the impact of systematic environmental manipulation on the behavior of 2.2 Western Lowland Gorillas. Paper presented at the Environmental Enrichment Conference, Portland, OR. Gould, E., Bres, M. (1986). Regurgitation and Reingestion in Captive Gorillas: Description and Intervention. Zoo Biology 5:241-250. Herman, L. (1980). Cetacean Behavior: Mechanisms And Functions. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Kirtland, J. (ed.) (Spring, 1993). Trainers Forum. SOUNDINGS, Newsletter of the International Marine Animal Trainers Association. Laule, G. (1984). Behavioral Intervention in the Case of a Hybrid Tursiops sp. Proceedings of the International Marine Animal Trainers Association Annual Conference, Los Angeles. Morgan L., Howell, S., Fritz, J. (1993). Regurgitation and Reingestion in a Captive Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Lab Animal, 22(8):42-45. Petto, A., Novak, M., Fingold, S., Walsh, A. (1990). The Search for Psychological Well-Being in Captive Nonhuman Primates: Information Sources. Science and Technology Libraries 10(2):101-127. Reinhardt, V., Houser, W., Eisele, S., Champoux, M. (1987). Social Enrichment of the Environment With Infants for Singly Caged Adult Rhesus Monkeys. Zoo Biology 6:365-371. Ruempler, U. (1991). Behavior Modification of Lowland Gorillas at the Cologne Zoo. Gorilla Gazette, 5(2).
Preparing the Farm and Farm Animals for Disasters
constructing or moving buildings to higher ground;
replacing or covering glass windows and doors with sturdier materials;
keeping drainage furrows sodded;
cleaning or moving trash piles and burial sites (Many farms contain burial sites contaminated with lead-based paints, machinery grease, motor oil, lead-lined tanks, batteries, roofing nails, asphalt, shingles, caulking compounds, linoleum and plumbing lead. During flooding this material may leech into the crops or feed supply or be moved to a more accessible area where animals could consume them.);
moving or storing toxic chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and rodenticides in secured areas to prevent their washing onto pastures where animals may be exposed;
securing loose items;
and draining or building levees around ponds that could flood.
A list of resources and people should be developed by the farmer and kept with important papers. This list should contain emergency phone numbers, suppliers, truckers, and people that can help with the animals, especially if normal working conditions are disrupted. Supplies that may be needed during or after the disaster should be obtained. Many of these items may not be readily available after the disaster. By obtaining them in advance, more reasonable prices will be paid. Unfortunately, disasters attract individuals who gouge and prey on the misfortunes of victims. Items that could be obtained are portable radios and TV's, extra batteries, flashlights, candles, portable generators, salt, gravel, litter, fuel, antifreeze, stored feed such as hay (the amount to store would depend on the hazard--after the Washington State flood, most producers vowed never to inventory large amounts of hay due to excessive flood damage and spoilage), ropes, halters and other animal restraint equipment, and medical supplies. Once obtained they should be stored in such a manner that they will be usable after the disaster. While in storage they should be checked at regular intervals--i.e., once a week--to assure that they do not spoil, and that electrical or mechanical appliances are still working. They should also be rechecked and evaluated after the event to assure they are still usable. A log should be kept to record when and how often the items were monitored. Animals should be kept current on all appropriate vaccinations and booster shots before the disaster. Keep a written record of the products given and the date of injection. Because the stress of the event and the disruption of the environment could cause an increase in infectious disease spread, proper vaccination could protect the animals. Representation to Governmental Agency Managing the Disaster Response As the disaster approaches or after it arrives, the most important thing the farmer needs is truthful, accurate, and current information. Government's response to most disasters is coordinated by a county, State, or Federal emergency management agency. Representation to this agency for the farmer is critical. In most instances, this is competently done by a member of the State or Federal Department of Agriculture. It is strongly suggested that farm organizations lobby for veterinary representation either through their State or Federal Department of Agriculture or separately to the emergency management agency. Often, the needs of animals during disasters are given low priority. Veterinarians, who are aware of these needs and can also verify the validity of requests for help, are most suited to bring animal problems to the forefront. In many instances, actions required to protect animals, such as sheltering or evacuation, must be done before a similar action is taken for people. This is because moving animals to shelter from pasture or evacuating them to other locations takes considerable time and many workers. However, governmental agencies will not issue such directives for animals before similar instructions are issued for people. They fear that a panic situation might occur and people might be critical about animals being protected before them. (Animals can always be released from the shelter or returned from their point of evacuation if the disaster does not materialize.) What they do not consider is that it must be done while it is still safe for people to do the task since animals cannot shelter or evacuate themselves. After the disaster, government usually limits access to the disaster area. However, animals have to be fed, watered, and milked. Who is better suited to do this than the owner? Designation of farmers as emergency workers by government solves the problem of who will be responsible for this task. A veterinarian located in the emergency operating center can get these messages across. Evacuation If evacuation of the animals is being considered, then evacuation procedures, places, and routes should be planned. Since all animals may not be able to be evacuated, owners should decide ahead of time which are the most important ones to save. Various decision criteria can be used such as sale value, breeding quality, stage of pregnancy, stage of production, or simply sentimental preference. These animals should be identified ahead of time and a written list kept. If the owner is not home when the disaster threatens, others would then know which animals to save. Animal evacuation routes must not interfere with human evacuation routes. Alternate routes should be found in case the planned route is not accessible. Places where animals are to be taken should be decided in advance and arrangements made with the owners of these places to accept the animals. Trucks, trailers, and other vehicles should be obtained in advance and the animals acclimated to them so they are not frightened when they have to be used. Restraint equipment, feed and water supplies should be available to use and move with the animals and sufficient people should be on hand to help move them. The animals should be photographed and permanently identified by metal eartag, tattoo, brand, registration papers, or microchip. A permanent record of the identification must be kept as this information is useful in resolving arguments of ownership in case animals gets loose. Papers documenting the identification should be kept with other important papers. Ultimately, the decision to evacuate will depend on the distance to be traveled, the amount of time before the disaster will affect the farm, and whether there is any advantage to moving the animals to the place selected. Sometimes evacuation may be done after the disaster, provided the roads are passable and the equipment needed for travel usable. If this is the case, the accepting location must be contacted to find out its condition. Sheltering Whether to move farm animals to shelter or leave them outside will depend on the integrity and location of the shelter being used and the type of disaster. During Hurricane Andrew, some horses left outside suffered less injury then those placed in shelters. This was because some shelters selected did not withstand the high winds. Horses were injured by collapsing structures and flying objects that may have been avoided on the outside. Another reason for possibly leaving animals unsheltered is because flood waters that inundate a barn could trap animals inside, causing them to drown. During severe winter weather, shelter animals from icy wind, rain, and snow. Generally, if the structure is sound, the animals should be placed indoors. Once they are inside, secure all openings to the outside. As mentioned previously, the sheltering should be ordered and completed before similar action is taken for humans. Farm cats and dogs should either be placed in a disaster-proof place or turned loose, as they generally will stay close to their home in the immediate period following a disaster. If they are loose, however, attempts must be made to immediately catch them after the threat is over to prevent these animals from becoming feral and a public health hazard. Some farm dogs are dangerously aggressive, and under normal circumstances should be kept chained. These dogs cannot be kept chained or turned loose during a disaster. If an inside shelter cannot be found, then the only safe and humane thing to do is to euthanize these dogs as a last measure before evacuation. Human Evacuation What can be done with the animals if there is a need to evacuate the premises and the animals have to be left unattended? There is always the risk that animals left unattended for extended periods could die or suffer injury. Sometimes, this may be the only option to protect human life. Protecting human life should always take priority in planning. Regardless, after the animals are secured in appropriate shelters, food and water should be left for them. The amount necessary for survival is considerably less than for other purposes. If the animals survive, then the decision can be made after the disaster whether it is worth the time and expense to bring them back to their previous condition. Consult the table as a guide to the amount of food and water to leave. Every practical effort should be made to leave animals with sufficient food and water for their survival-- enough for 48 hours should be left. Usually, within that time the initial effects of the disaster will be over. During the recovery phase, the decision can then be made as to the best way to mount a rescue effort. Special Considerations Some practices that may be followed in planning for disasters, especially during the winter, require a special alert. During winter weather it is common to use portable heaters, gritty substances on the floor to prevent slipping, and antifreeze. When using these heaters, be sure they are working properly and are located in an area where there is adequate ventilation. Heaters not working correctly could be a source of carbon monoxide, a deadly, odorless, colorless gas. Antifreeze used in vehicles is a deadly poison. Animals seem attracted to it and will readily consume it because of its sweet taste. Take care to properly label all containers. Do not use containers previously filled with antifreeze for other purposes, especially feed and water. Promptly clean up all leaks and spills. Water supplies should be checked for freezing. Many animals have died of thirst during the winter, even with abundant water sources, because they could not drink the water as it was frozen solid. If gritty material is spread on floors to prevent slipping, use only approved nontoxic materials. Recently, a farmer mistakenly used Furadan, a fungicide, for this purpose and several cows who licked it off the floor died. Farms can be insured against catastrophic events. Insurance policies are available for replacement of damaged materials, repair work for recovery, boarding of evacuated occupants and animals, lost production, and relocation. These should be investigated and purchased before the disaster threatens. For a farmer to claim compensation for lost production, which in many cases is the largest economic cost during a disaster, the farmer must have substantial records that document the level of production his/her herd has achieved in previous years. This is generally only successful in herds with recognized herd monitoring programs, such as Dairy Herd Improvement or other programs that are available for various species. To verify the validity of these records a herd health program, based on a valid veterinarian-client-animal relationship, should be in place. A copy of all production records should be kept in a secure place so that the details are not lost during the disaster. Many veterinarians are willing to keep copies of their clients' production records, if they are computerized and space efficient. Conclusion Depending upon the event, disaster preparation may or may not be successful. However, it is known that effects of disasters are lessened by proper planning. Economically, it is cheaper to prevent the problem or lessen its effect than to pay the costs of recovery. The time to do this is NOW, before the disaster occurs. Short Term Dietary Requirements for Animals During Disasters ANIMALS WATER/DAY FEED/DAY Dairy Cows In Production 9 GALLONS SUMMER 20 lb HAY 7 GALLONS WINTER Dry cows 9 GALLONS SUMMER 20 lb HAY 7 GALLONS WINTER Weaning cows 6 GALLONS SUMMER 8-12 lb HAY 3 GALLONS WINTER Pregnant 7 GALLONS SUMMER 10-15 lb LEGUME HAY 6 GALLONS WINTER Cow with calf 9 GALLONS SUMMER 12-18 lb LEGUME HAY 8 GALLONS WINTER Calf (400 POUNDS) 6 GALLONS SUMMER 8-12 lb LEGUME HAY 4 GALLONS WINTER Swine Brood sow with litter 4 GALLONS SUMMER 8 lb GRAIN 3 GALLONS WINTER Brood sow (pregnant) 1-2 GALLONS SUMMER 2 lb GRAIN 1 GALLON WINTER Gilt or boar (150 lb) 1 GALLON 3 lb GRAIN Sheep Ewe with lamb 1 GALLON 5 lb HAY Ewe, dry 3 QUARTS 3 lb HAY Weanling lamb 2 QUARTS 3 lb HAY Poultry Layers 5 GALLONS/100 BIRDS 17 lb/100 BIRDS Broilers 5 GALLONS/100 BIRDS 10 lb/100 BIRDS Turkeys 12 GALLONS/100 BIRDS 40 lb/100 BIRDS Horses All breeds 5 GALLONS/1000 lb 20 lb HAY/1000 lb Dogs and Cats 1 QUART/DAY/ANIMAL AD LIBITUM DRY FOOD All Breeds
