Body Condition Scores and Evaluation of Feeding Habits of Dogs and Cats at a Low Cost Veterinary Clinic and a General Practice.

This study assessed body condition scores (BCS) and feeding habits for dogs and cats. Eighty-six cats and 229 dogs (and their owners) were enrolled from 2 clinics: a low cost clinic (n = 149) and a general practice (n = 166). BCS and body weight were recorded. Owners completed a survey which included animal age, sex, and breed; owner demographics; and feeding practices (e.g., diet, rationale for feeding practices). Owners from the low cost clinic had a significantly lower income (P < 0.001) and education (P < 0.001) compared to those from the general practice. Animals from the low cost clinic were younger (P < 0.001) and dogs were less likely to be neutered (P < 0.001). Overweight prevalence was 55% overall (P = 0.083), with a significantly higher prevalence in the general practice for cats (44% versus 66%; P = 0.046), but not for dogs (58% versus 53%; P = 0.230). Multivariate analysis showed that only neuter status was significantly associated with BCS (P = 0.004). Veterinarians were the most common source of nutritional information, though lack of accurate nutrition knowledge was common among all participants. These findings support the need for enhanced communication about optimal BCS and nutrition regardless of socioeconomic status.

A study of sharing and reciprocity in grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus).

Demonstrations of nonhuman ability to share resources and reciprocate such sharing seem contingent upon the experimental paradigm used (note Horner et al. in PNAS 108:13847-13851, 2011). Here, such behaviour in Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) was tested in two experiments, both designed to avoid possible issues involving apparatus complexity, visible reward options, and physical competition and/or limited communication between subjects. In both studies, two birds, working in dyads, took turns in choosing one of four different coloured cups with differing outcomes: empty (null, nonrewarding), selfish (keeping reward for oneself), share (sharing a divisible reward), or giving (donating reward to other). In Experiment 1, each bird alternated choices with a conspecific; in Experiment 2, each bird alternated with the three humans with different specific intentions (selfish, giving, or copying bird's behaviour). In both experiments, birds could learn to cooperatively reward a partner at little cost to themselves-by sharing-and potentially maximize overall reward by reciprocating such sharing. Experiment 1 results differed depending upon which bird began a session: Only our dominant bird, as follower, was willing to share. In Experiment 2, birds' responses tended towards consistency with human behaviour. Our dominant bird was willing to share a reward with a human who was willing to give up her reward, was selfish with the selfish human, and tended towards sharing with the copycat human; our subordinate bird tended slightly towards increased sharing with the generous human and selfishness with the selfish human, but did not change behaviour with the copycat.