<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id>0375-1589</journal-id>
<journal-title><![CDATA[South African Journal of Animal Science]]></journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title><![CDATA[S. Afr. j. anim. sci.]]></abbrev-journal-title>
<issn>0375-1589</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[The South African Society for Animal Science (SASAS)]]></publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id>S0375-15892012000200004</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Foster parenting, human imprinting and conventional handling affects survival and early weight of ostrich chicks]]></article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wang]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.D.]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A01"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cloete]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.W.P.]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A01"/>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A02"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Dzama]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[K.]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A01"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bonato]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A01"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Malecki]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[LA.]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A01"/>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A03"/>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A04"/>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="A01">
<institution><![CDATA[,University of Stellenbosch Department of Animal Sciences ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Matieland ]]></addr-line>
<country>South Africa</country>
</aff>
<aff id="A02">
<institution><![CDATA[,Institute for Animal Production: Elsenburg  ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Elsenburg ]]></addr-line>
<country>South Africa</country>
</aff>
<aff id="A03">
<institution><![CDATA[,University of Western Australia Faculty of Natural Agricultural Science School of Animal Biology]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Crawley WA]]></addr-line>
</aff>
<aff id="A04">
<institution><![CDATA[,The University of Western Australia UWA Institute of Agriculture ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Crawley WA]]></addr-line>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="pub">
<day>00</day>
<month>00</month>
<year>2012</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>00</day>
<month>00</month>
<year>2012</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>42</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<fpage>123</fpage>
<lpage>130</lpage>
<copyright-statement/>
<copyright-year/>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S0375-15892012000200004&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso&amp;tlng=en"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&amp;pid=S0375-15892012000200004&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso&amp;tlng=en"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&amp;pid=S0375-15892012000200004&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso&amp;tlng=en"></self-uri><abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="en"><p><![CDATA[The effects of human imprinting and foster parenting by adult ostriches on the survival and growth performance of ostrich chicks were compared to conventional chick-rearing practices in two separate experiments. In the first experiment, the growth rate and survival of chicks imprinted onto humans were compared with those of chicks reared by adult foster parents (n = 100 for both groups). Survival is expressed as proportions, while weights were measured in kg. Treatment did not affect chick survival to 3 weeks (0.90 for imprinted chicks vs. 0.89 for foster chicks), or from 4 to 12 weeks (0.86 vs. 0.83, respectively). Chick weight was not significantly different between groups at 4 weeks, but at older ages, those chicks reared by foster parents consistently outperformed imprinted chicks (means ± SEs being 12.8 ± 0.4 vs. 8.2 ± 0.4 kg at 9 weeks, 37.1 ± 0.8 vs. 19.9 ± 0.80 kg at 18 weeks and 46.2 ± 1.1 vs. 28.6 ± 1.2 kg at 22 weeks). In the second experiment, the treatments consisted of a human-imprinted group of chicks and a group subjected to conventional rearing methods (as customary on the research farm). Chick survival to four weeks was significantly higher for imprinted chicks than for conventionally reared chicks (0.97 vs. 0.84), although chick weight was independent of treatment at 4 weeks (6.27 ± 0.16 kg for the imprinted group vs. 6.18 ± 0.17 kg for the conventional group) and at 15 weeks (respectively 16.5 ± 0.68 vs. 15.2 ± 0.70 kg). Overall, chicks reared by foster parents were heavier than human-imprinted chicks, while early survival of imprinted chicks was better than that of chicks reared by conventional handling. Imprinting thus affected survival of ostrich chicks relative to conventional rearing practices. Because most ostrich chicks are reared with conventional methods, the present study indicates that improvements can be made by adopting alternative approaches. Further studies are needed to ascertain how foster parenting and imprinting may be utilized to optimize chick performance, including the long-term consequences of these practices.]]></p></abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Parental care]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Struthio camelus]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[animal welfare]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[animal behaviour]]></kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front><body><![CDATA[ <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b><a name="top"></a>Foster    parenting, human imprinting and conventional handling affects survival and early    weight of ostrich chicks</b></font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>M.D. Wang<sup>I</sup>;    S.W.P. Cloete<sup>I, II, <a href="#back">#</a></sup>; K. Dzama<sup>I</sup>;    M. Bonato<sup>I</sup>; LA. Malecki<sup>I, III, IV</sup></b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><sup>I</sup>Department    of Animal Sciences, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602,    South Africa    <br>   <sup>II</sup>Institute for Animal Production: Elsenburg, Private Bag X1, Elsenburg    7607, South Africa    <br>   <sup>III</sup>School of Animal Biology, Faculty of Natural Agricultural Science,    University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009    <br>   <sup>IV</sup>UWA Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia,    35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009</font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr size="1" noshade>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>ABSTRACT</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The effects of    human imprinting and foster parenting by adult ostriches on the survival and    growth performance of ostrich chicks were compared to conventional chick-rearing    practices in two separate experiments. In the first experiment, the growth rate    and survival of chicks imprinted onto humans were compared with those of chicks    reared by adult foster parents (n = 100 for both groups). Survival is expressed    as proportions, while weights were measured in kg. Treatment did not affect    chick survival to 3 weeks (0.90 for imprinted chicks vs. 0.89 for foster chicks),    or from 4 to 12 weeks (0.86 vs. 0.83, respectively). Chick weight was not significantly    different between groups at 4 weeks, but at older ages, those chicks reared    by foster parents consistently outperformed imprinted chicks (means &plusmn;    SEs being 12.8 &plusmn; 0.4 vs. 8.2 &plusmn; 0.4 kg at 9 weeks, 37.1 &plusmn;    0.8 vs. 19.9 &plusmn; 0.80 kg at 18 weeks and 46.2 &plusmn; 1.1 vs. 28.6 &plusmn;    1.2 kg at 22 weeks). In the second experiment, the treatments consisted of a    human-imprinted group of chicks and a group subjected to conventional rearing    methods (as customary on the research farm). Chick survival to four weeks was    significantly higher for imprinted chicks than for conventionally reared chicks    (0.97 vs. 0.84), although chick weight was independent of treatment at 4 weeks    (6.27 &plusmn; 0.16 kg for the imprinted group vs. 6.18 &plusmn; 0.17 kg for    the conventional group) and at 15 weeks (respectively 16.5 &plusmn; 0.68 vs.    15.2 &plusmn; 0.70 kg). Overall, chicks reared by foster parents were heavier    than human-imprinted chicks, while early survival of imprinted chicks was better    than that of chicks reared by conventional handling. Imprinting thus affected    survival of ostrich chicks relative to conventional rearing practices. Because    most ostrich chicks are reared with conventional methods, the present study    indicates that improvements can be made by adopting alternative approaches.    Further studies are needed to ascertain how foster parenting and imprinting    may be utilized to optimize chick performance, including the long-term consequences    of these practices.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Keywords:</b>    Parental care, <i>Struthio camelus,</i> animal welfare, animal behaviour</font></p> <hr size="1" noshade>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3"><b>Introduction</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Considerable progress    on human-animal interactions in agriculture has been achieved recently as a    consequence of growing concerns about farmed animal welfare (Rushen <i>et al.,</i>    1999; Zulkifli &amp; Azah, 2004). Habituation to human handling and environmental    enrichment during rearing are two methods that may reduce the overall stress    levels of farm animals, with positive effects on their behaviour, productivity    and welfare (Mills &amp; Faure, 1990; Jones &amp; Waddington, 1992; Hemsworth    <i>et al.,</i> 1993; Reed <i>et al.,</i> 1993; Rushen <i>et al.,</i> 1999).    Environmental enrichment is a vague concept, referring to improvements to the    environment of captive animals (Newberry, 1995). The imprinting phenomenon is    potentially a method of environmental enrichment (Savatierra <i>et al.,</i>    1994). In avian species, recent hatchlings form an attachment with any individual    present at the time of hatching (Matsushima <i>et al.,</i> 2003; Slagsvold &amp;    Hansen, 2008).</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">This attachment,    often irreversible, is termed 'filial imprinting' and accounts for a number    of the most fundamental animal behaviours and social preferences (Slagsvold    &amp; Hansen, 2008). Environmental enrichment and regular handling have been    shown to improve growth, reproductive performance, egg production, feed conversion    rate, antibody production, disease resistance, survival and general behaviour    in chickens (Jones <i>et al.,</i> 1980; Jones &amp; Hughes, 1981; Collins &amp;    Siegel, 1987; Gvaryahu <i>et al.,</i> 1989; Jones &amp; Waddington, 1992; 1993;    Barnett <i>et al.,</i> 1994; Hemsworth <i>et al.,</i> 1994). They may thus,    potentially, have profound effects on the way farm animals are handled.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Foster parenting,    on the other hand, may promote the welfare, survival and performance of ratite    chicks (Barri <i>et al.,</i> 2005; Janse van Vuuren, 2008). Ostrich chicks reared    by breeding pairs exhibit superior survival to that of chicks reared with conventional    intensive methods (Janse van Vuuren, 2008). In addition, chicks exhibit reduced    stress, and breeder pairs are provided with the opportunity to express natural    parental care (Janse van Vuuren, 2008; Cloete &amp; Malecki, 2011). The environment    of both the chicks and the breeding pairs may thereby have been enriched. Rabbits    have also been seen to effectively supplement the mother figure and improve    the welfare of the chicks (Madeiros, 1997). Consumption of rabbit dung by the    ostrich chicks may provide them with vitamins B and K while inoculating the    chicks' intestines with beneficial bacteria, preventing yolk sac problems and    other diseases associated with poor colonisation of their guts (Madeiros, 1997).    The adoption approach necessitates less effort and investment than rearing chicks    in special facilities, while preventing the imprinting of chicks onto humans    (Bubier <i>et al.,</i> 1996; Labaque <i>et al.,</i> 1999). Imprinting is seen    as problematic in commercially farmed ostriches, as the imprinted bird may subsequently    direct its sexual attention to those humans on whom it was imprinted (Bubier    <i>et al.,</i> 1996). In contrast, imprinting on humans may play an important    role in efforts to devise a viable protocol for assisted reproduction in this    species (Malecki &amp; Rybnik-Traskowska, 2011). Such a development would lead    to improved industry data for analysis by allowing the accurate partitioning    of random effects (Cloete <i>et al.,</i> 2008) and would reduce the number of    males required in industry flocks, leading to an obvious decrease in feeding    costs.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Environmental enrichment,    imprinting, foster parenting and regular handling are powerful tools and their    independent or integrated application may alleviate stress, thereby satisfying    many of the limitations imposed by stress-related behaviour (Jones &amp; Waddington,    1993). The potential alleviation of stress in ostriches through regular human    handling and environmental enrichment techniques is therefore an important objective    in animal welfare and production (Jones &amp; Waddington, 1993). Foster parenting,    on the other hand, provides a low-cost alternative for rearing ratite chicks.    This practice has direct advantages in terms of growth of greater rhea chicks    (Barri<i>et al.,</i> 2005) and survival of ostrich chicks (Janse van Vuuren,    2008), possibly reflecting an alleviation in the stress experienced by the young    chick as a result of the presence of foster parents.</font></p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Against this background,    a preliminary study was conducted to investigate whether imprinting on humans    as a potential form of environmental enrichment and regular handling can improve    the survival and growth of ostrich chicks. The effectiveness of the practice    of foster parenting was assessed simultaneously as a low-cost alternative rearing    method.</font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3"><b>Materials and    Methods</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Day-old chicks    to use in the study were obtained from the pair-bred ostrich flock at Oudtshoorn    Research Farm. The management of the breeding pairs and eggs in this flock has    been described (Bunter &amp; Cloete, 2004; Cloete <i>et al.,</i> 2008). Two    experiments were performed.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Experiment 1:</b>    Two hundred ostrich chicks, hatched over four days, were randomly assigned to    two groups. The first group comprised chicks raised by breeder pairs as foster    parents in an extensive rearing environment with minimal human contact to prevent    imprinting onto humans (Bubier <i>et al.,</i> 1996). Three breeder pairs (referred    to as pairs 21, 23 and 29) were selected from previous knowledge of their foster-parenting    ability from the breeder pairs maintained on the farm. The ages of the male    (M) and female (F) of each respective pair were M21: 9 years, F21: 13 years,    M23: 18 years, F23: 17 years, M29: 11 years and F29: 10 years. The selected    breeder pairs incubated and hatched at least one of their own eggs. The experimental    chicks (n = 100 divided 33 : 33 : 34) were incubated in the hatchery in synchronization    with those eggs incubated naturally by the breeder birds. On hatching, chicks    from the artificially incubated eggs were added to those of the breeder birds    (Labaque <i>et al.,</i> 1999). Each breeder pair, together with their respective    chicks, was maintained in 1 - 2 ha lucerne camps with water and feed available    <i>ad libitum.</i> The second group, the human imprinting group, consisted of    100 chicks that were reared using conventional chick-rearing practices (Bunter    &amp; Cloete, 2004) in an intensive rearing facility. Food and potable water    were available <i>ad libitum,</i> while artificial heating was supplied. According    to Bunter &amp; Cloete (2004) conventional rearing implies that chicks were    not reared by their parents, but were maintained in small groups of between    80 and 150 chicks up to approximately 12 weeks of age. Human imprinting was    achieved by chicks remaining in the hatchery before being transferred to an    intensive rearing facility. For 30 days they were given human contact according    to this schedule: from hatching to 10 days of age, human presence was established    for 100% daylight hours (5:45 - 18:30). The chicks were familiarized to touch,    voice, hand feeding and a general human presence. The person who remained with    them wore a white laboratory overcoat at all times. The degree to which ostriches    distinguish individuals as yet has not been fully ascertained, although it has    been suggested that in livestock, habituation to the original handler is rapidly    generalized to similarly dressed, but otherwise unfamiliar humans (Hemsworth    <i>et al.,</i> 1996 ). After 10 days, the human presence was decreased to 50%    daylight hours (6:00 - 7:00; 9:00 - 10:00; 11:00 - 12:00; 13:00 -14:00; 15:00    - 16:00; 17:00 - 18:00) for another 10 days. From day 21 to day 30 a human remained    with the chicks from 7:00 to 8:00, and then a human was present for 30 minutes    every 1.5 hours until 17:00, followed by a full hour from 17:00 to 18:00. At    10 days post hatch, the chicks were split into three groups that were placed    in adjacent pens. Chicks were weighed at hatching and again at 4, 9, 18 and    22 weeks of age. In addition, all mortalities were recorded for both treatment    groups.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">It is conceded    that the management systems resulted in treatments differing in more ways than    only imprinting versus foster-parenting. The fostered birds were accommodated    outside, with access to lucerne pasture as well as standard balanced rations,    whereas the imprinted chicks had only the same standard balanced ration (Cooper,    2004) as a food source. When the imprinted chicks were placed outside at 12    weeks, they had access to the same food sources as those supplied to the foster-parented    chicks (a balanced diet and lucerne pasture).</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Experiment 2:</b>    A group of day-old chicks were divided into two groups. One group (control),    comprising 97 chicks, were distributed between two adjacent pens and exposed    to the standard intensive rearing protocol of Oudtshoorn Research Farm, with    human contact limited to daily provision of food and fresh water (Bunter, 2002).    The other group (treatment) encompassed the 'imprinting, human foster group'    that were raised under the same conditions, but in identical separate rooms    distributed between two adjacent pens, with the addition of a regular human    presence. Chicks that were used had hatched over a period of three days. From    days 1 - 5 a person remained with the chicks from 6:00 to 18:00. Thereafter,    the time spent with the chicks decreased by three hours every five days. The    hours spent with the human subject were evenly spread according to three pivotal    times (8:00, 12:00 and 16:00). Chicks were familiarized with human speech, touch,    movement, and hand feeding, along with a general human presence. The human would    sit on a chair in each of the two adjacent pens, sit on a cushion on the floor    or walk around the pen. All mortalities were recorded. The imprinting phase    of the trial concluded at day 21. Thereafter all experimental chicks were combined    and exposed to the same standard chick-rearing protocol. Weighing took place    at hatching and at 4 and 9 weeks of age.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Individual chicks    were used as experimental units in both experiments. It is conceded that groups    of chicks treated as experimental units would be a better way of approaching    the problem. However, the limited facilities available for the sizes of groups    needed for such an experiment, the number of indoor pens available, as well    as the number of foster parents, would have made experiments with such a design    impossible. Moreover, the research was designed as a preliminary study to explore    potential benefits associated with the alternative management options. It could    be argued that the comparison of individual chicks would be appropriate, especially    in Experiment 2, as all facilities were similar, with the exception of human    imprinting. It was also possible to combine these chicks soon after the cessation    of the imprinting period. A more definite difference was present in Experiment    1, where the chicks could be combined only after recording for this experiment    ceased.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Using data of individual    chicks, Chi-square analyses were used to compare treatment effects on age-specific    chick survival. The effect of different treatments on age-specific weights was    ascertained through standard one-way ANOVA procedures. A supplementary analysis    comparing the survival and performance of the chicks raised by the three separate    breeding pairs was accordingly done via Chi-square analysis and one-way ANOVA.</font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3"><b>Results and    Discussion</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In Experiment 1    there was no difference between fostered and imprinted chicks in chick survival    to 12 weeks or chick weight at 4 weeks of age. However, as the chicks got older,    the foster-reared chicks outperformed the imprinted chicks, exhibiting higher    weights and elevated survival from 13 to 24 weeks post hatch (<a href="/img/revistas/sajas/v42n2/04t01.jpg">Table    1</a>). Relative to the imprinted group, the weights of the foster-parented    group were improved by 0.56 at 9 weeks, 0.86 at 18 weeks, and 0.62 at 22 weeks.    These results are comparable with those of Barri <i>et al.</i> (2005), who reported    no difference in survival rates of adopted greater rhea chicks compared with    those reared intensively. They also proposed adoption to be potentially more    beneficial in chick growth and the cost of chick-rearing. Other potential favourable    effects, such as the possible benefit of coprophagy on the microbial constituents    and subsequent digestion of young chicks have also been referenced (Cooper,    2000). Ostrich chicks have a preference for pecking at green objects (Bubier    <i>et al.,</i> 1996), although Cooper (2004) suggested that lucerne should not    be fed to young chicks as it corresponded with elevated mortalities owing to    impaction. In this study, however, lucerne was available to the foster chicks    (Bubier <i>et al.,</i> 1996). Since feeding behaviour is learned from observing    adults in the wild, the presence of the foster parents may enhance this inclination    (Aganga <i>et al.,</i> 2003). Although it was not quantified, it was observed    that the human-imprinted chicks exhibited a greater degree of feather pecking,    pecking at the air and general pecking behaviour that was alleviated when the    group was split into three separate pens, but which may have contributed to    inhibited growth (Lambert <i>et al.,</i> 1995). The human-imprinted chicks may    also have experienced stress after the perceived abandonment by the imprinting    subject at 30 days post hatch. This stress may have inhibited the growth of    the imprinted chicks (Laugero &amp; Moberg, 2000), but it was not reflected    in their survival from 4 to 12 weeks. When late chick survival (from 13 to 24    weeks) was considered, chicks reared by foster parents had an improved survival    relative to the imprinted chicks (<a href="/img/revistas/sajas/v42n2/04t01.jpg">Table    1</a>). Although the results are not directly comparable, it is notable that    in her study Janse van Vuuren (2008) reported that chicks with foster parents    survived better than those subjected to conventional rearing.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Chicks in the care    of breeder pair 21 exhibited reduced survival and growth compared with the other    two breeder pairs (<a href="/img/revistas/sajas/v42n2/04t02.jpg">Table 2</a>).    The cumulative proportion of chicks that survived to 24 weeks post hatch was    0.54 for those chicks raised by breeder pair 21, which was significantly lower    than that of the breeder pairs23 and 29 (<a href="/img/revistas/sajas/v42n2/04t02.jpg">Table    2</a>; 0.90 and 0.71, respectively). Breeder pair 23, on the other hand, had    the highest chick survival to 24 weeks of age, as well as the heaviest chicks    at all ages measured (<a href="/img/revistas/sajas/v42n2/04t02.jpg">Table 2</a>).    It is significant that breeder pair 21 had the youngest male (9 years), whereas    breeder pair 23 had the oldest male and female. Bolton (1991) proposed that    parental quality attributes such as age, breeding experience and condition potentially    contribute to a large extent to the offspring fitness in a study on precocial    lesser black-backed gulls. The performance of the various pairs may thus reflect    age and parental experience. These components should be investigated further.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In Experiment 2,    chicks raised with deliberate and regular human care exhibited better early    chick survival to three weeks of age compared with the conventional rearing    treatment <i>(P</i> &lt;0.05; <a href="/img/revistas/sajas/v42n2/04t03.jpg">Table    3</a>). This resembles findings in young poultry where antibody production,    disease resistance and mortality were all positively affected by regular handling    (Jones &amp; Waddington, 1992; 1993; Barnett <i>et al.,</i> 1994; Hemsworth    <i>et al.,</i> 1994). Several studies across a wide variety of species have    shown that regular handling corresponds with a distinct reduction in the degree    of anxiety and is an effective method for reducing fear of humans, presumably    via habituation (Jones &amp; Waddington, 1992; 1993; Hemsworth <i>et al.,</i>    1993; Barnett <i>et al.,</i> 1994; Tanida <i>et al.,</i> 1994; Jones, 1994;    Hemsworth <i>et al.,</i> 1996a; Rushen <i>et al.,</i> 1999; Zulkifli &amp; Azah,    2004). Because stress contributes to elevated mortalities (Verwoerd <i>et al.,</i>    1997), enhanced survival during the period that the chicks experienced regular    handling may reflect a state of lowered stress. This, however, needs to be further    verified, together with a means of determining levels of stress in ostriches.    After four weeks of age, chick survival was independent of treatment. It is    worth noting that both groups of chicks were treated similarly from four weeks    post hatch, being maintained on outdoor paddocks with <i>ad libitum</i> balanced    rations available. These results suggest that imprinting, regular handling and    the corresponding monitoring of conditions, stressors, and possible other impediments    may have contributed to the higher early survival of imprinted chicks. The degree    to which the chicks imprinted onto the human subject, however, needs to be deliberated    because some chicks exhibited a greater tendency to approach, follow and remain    in general close proximity to the human subject than others. The ability of    chicks to distinguish between individual people and whether habituation to one    individual may extend to another should also be investigated further (Jones,    1994; Rushen <i>et al.,</i> 1999). The human who was primarily involved in the    regular handling was absent after four weeks, after which survival was no longer    affected. Birds do appear to be highly sensitive to visual stimulus characteristics    of people in their environment and apparently utilize these characteristics    to discriminate between humans (Bolhuis &amp; Horn, 1992; Barnett <i>et al.,</i>    1994; Rushen <i>et al.,</i> 1999). At this stage, it is not known, however,    whether ostriches can differentiate between people.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Growth, as reflected    by weight, was independent of treatment group in this experiment (<a href="/img/revistas/sajas/v42n2/04t03.jpg">Table    3</a>). This is similar to the studies of Reichman <i>et al.</i> (1978) and    Leonard &amp; Fairfull (1992), who found regular handling to have no effect    on the growth of young broilers and layers. Jones &amp; Hughes (1981), however,    demonstrated an improvement in growth and performance with regular handling.    The effect of handling on production is evidently inconsistent, exhibiting an    extensive array of influential variables (Rushen <i>et al.,</i> 1999). The precise    mechanisms of this relationship in ostriches should be further investigated    (Hemsworth <i>et al.,</i> 1994).</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Overall, the present    study indicated that chicks reared by foster parents and those imprinted onto    humans with regular handling exhibited similar 4-week chick weight and chick    survival to three months of age. The chicks reared by foster parents, however,    attained substantially higher mean weights at older ages. Differences in the    survival and growth of the various foster groups of chicks also suggest an effect    of parenting ability on the performance of chicks, which probably needs further    research. On the other hand, human imprinting and regular handling corresponded    with improved chick survival during the first few weeks post hatch, in comparison    with chicks reared according to conventional procedures in an intensive rearing    facility, although chick weights were unaffected. Imprinting and early regular    handling regimens, however, had no effect on survival at older ages when compared    with the conventionally reared group. It is important to note that foster parenting    is indeed a practical and feasible management practice that is occasionally    implemented during the rearing of ratite chicks (see Barri <i>et al.,</i> 2005;    Janse van Vuuren, 2008; Cloete &amp; Malecki, 2011). In contrast, the method    of imprinting ratite chicks is not commonly practiced, as it is more intensive    and time consuming in nature. However, the practical applications of both approaches    have not been clarified satisfactorily, confirming the need for further study.</font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3"><b>Conclusions</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">This preliminary    study suggests that ostrich chicks reared under semi-intensive conditions by    foster parents are heavier than chicks reared under intensive conditions and    imprinted onto humans. Foster parents, however, differ in their chick-rearing    ability, resulting in significant differences in chick performance. In intensive    rearing facilities, early survival of imprinted chicks was better than that    of chicks reared by conventional practices. Imprinting thus affected early survival    of ostrich chicks relative to conventional rearing. These results indicate a    number of potential further studies as important. Such studies need to assess    how imprinting and foster parenting may be utilized to optimize chick performance,    as both systems seem to be viable alternatives to conventional rearing. To achieve    this, the innate components of behavioural preferences and stress susceptibility    in ostrich chicks, as well as the behavioural aspects of good foster parenting    and imprinting, need to be investigated. Imprinting onto humans takes much time    and effort and may be impractical in commercial farming industries. The potential    of imprinting onto objects, however, should be considered, together with diverse    forms of environmental enrichment (classical music, dummies) that may be more    practical, with similar outcomes associated with reduced stress. Research differentiating    regular handling and human imprinting and its effects could also be of benefit.    This information will be crucial to determine how these two divergent strategies    may be utilized to optimize survival, performance and welfare of ostrich chicks.    Similarly, the obvious advantage of foster parenting for commercial chick production    in terms of affordability needs to be elucidated.</font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3"><b>Acknowledgements</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The study was partly    funded by the Western Cape Agricultural Research Trust and the Technology and    Human Resources for Industry Programme (THRIP) of South Africa. The cooperation    of the personnel at Oudtshoorn Research Farm is also gratefully acknowledged.</font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3"><b>References</b></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Aganga, A.A., Aganga,    A.O. &amp; Omphile, U.J., 2003. Ostrich feeding and nutrition. Pak. J. Nutr.    2, 60-67.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602469&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400001&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Barnett, J.L.,    Hemsworth, P.H., Hennessy, D.P., McCallum, T.H. &amp; Newman, E.A., 1994. The    effects of modifying the amount of human contact on behavioural, physiological    and production responses of laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 41, 87-100.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602470&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400002&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Barri, F.R., Navarro.,    J.L., Maciera, N.O. &amp; Martella, M.B., 2005. Rearing greater rhea <i>(Rhea    americana)</i> chicks: is adoption more effective than the artificial intensive    system? Br. Poult. Sci. 46, 22-25.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602471&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400003&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Bolhuis, J.J.    &amp; Horn, G., 1992. Generalization of learned preferences in filial imprinting.    Anim. Behav. 44, 185-187.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602472&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400004&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Bubier, N.E., Lambert,    M.S., Deeming, D.C., Ayres, L.L. &amp; Sibly, R.M., 1996. Time budget and colour    preference (with specific reference to feeding) of ostrich <i>(Struthio camelus)</i>    chicks in captivity. Br. Poult. Sci. 37, 547-551.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602473&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400005&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Bubier, N.E., Paxton,    C.G.M., Bowers, P. &amp; Deeming, D.C., 1998. Courtship behaviour of farmed    ostriches in relations to humans. Br. Poult. Sci. 39, 477-481.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602474&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400006&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Bunter, K.L.,    2002. The genetic analysis of reproduction and production traits recorded for    farmed ostriches (S<i>truthio camelus).</i> PhD dissertation, University New    England, Armidale, Australia. </font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602475&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400007&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Bunter, K.L. &amp;    Cloete S.W.P., 2004. Genetic parameters for egg-, chick-, and live-weight traits    recorded in farmed ostriches (Struthio camelus). Livest. Prod. Sci. 91, 9-22.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602476&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400008&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Cloete, S.W.P.    &amp; Malecki, I.A., 2011. Breeder welfare: Past, present and future. In: The    Welfare of Farmed Ratites. Eds Glatz, P., Lunam, C. &amp; Malecki, I.A., Springer,    Berlin. pp.13-44. </font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602477&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400009&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Cloete, S.W.P.,    Engelbrecht, A., Olivier, J.J. &amp; Bunter, K.L., 2008. Direct response in    breeding values to selection of ostriches for liveweight and reproduction. Aust.    J. Exp. Agric. 48, 1247-1256. </font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602478&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400010&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Collins, J.W. &amp;    Siegel, P.B., 1987. Human handling, flock size and responses to an <i>E. coli</i>    challenge in young chickens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 19, 183-188.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602479&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400011&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Cooper, R.G., 2000.    Critical factors in ostrich <i>(Struthio camelus australis)</i> production:    a focus on southern Africa. Wrld's Poult. Sci. J. 56, 247-265.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602480&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400012&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Cooper, R.G., 2004.    Ostrich <i>(Struthio camelus)</i> chick and grower nutrition. Anim. Sci. J.    75, 487-490.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602481&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400013&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Gvaryahu, G.,    Cunningham, D.L. &amp; Van Tienhoven, A., 1989. Filial imprinting, environmental    enrichments and music application effects on behavior and performance of meat    strain chickens. Poult. Sci. 68, 211-217</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602482&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400014&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Hemsworth, P.H.,    Barnett, J.L. &amp; Coleman, G.J., 1993. The human-animal relationship in agriculture    and its consequence for the animal. Anim. Welf. 2, 33-35. </font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602483&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400015&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Hemsworth, P.H.,    Coleman, G.J. &amp; Barnett, J.L., 1994. Improving the attitude and behaviour    of stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive    performance of commercial pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 39, 349-362.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602484&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400016&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Hemsworth, P.H.,    Coleman, G.C., Cransberg, P.H. &amp; Barnett, J.L., 1996. Human factors and    the productivity and welfare of commercial broiler chickens. Research Report    on Chicken Meat Research and Development Council Project, Attwood, Australia.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602485&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400017&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Janse van Vuuren,    M., 2008. Faktore wat die oorlewing van volstruiskuikens <i>(Struthio camelus)</i>    verhoog (in Afrikaans). M.Tech. thesis, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University,    Port Elizabeth, South Africa. </font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602486&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400018&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Jones, R.B., 1994.    Regular handling and the domestic chick's fear of human beings: generalisation    of response. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 42, 129-143. </font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602487&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400019&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Jones, R.B. &amp;    Hughes, B.O., 1981. Effects of regular handling on growth in male and female    chicks of broiler and layer strains. Br. Poult. Sci. 22, 1033.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602488&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400020&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Jones, R.B. &amp;    Waddington, D., 1992. Modification of fear in domestic chicks, <i>Gallus gallus    domestica,</i> via regular handling and early environmental enrichment. Anim.    Behav. 43, 1021-1033. </font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602489&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400021&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Jones, R.B. &amp;    Waddington, D., 1993. Attenuation of the domestic chicks; fear of human beings    via regular handling: In search of a sensitive period. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.    36, 185-l95. </font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602490&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400022&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Jones, R.B., Harvey,    S., Hughes, B.O. &amp; Chadwick, A., 1980. Growth and the plasma concentration    of growth hormone and prolactin in chicks: effects of environmental enrichment,    sex and strain. Br. Poult. Sci. 21, 457-462.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602491&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400023&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Labaque, M.C.,    Navarro, J.L. &amp; Martella, M.B., 1999. A note on chick adoption: a complementary    strategy for rearing rheas. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 63, 165-170.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602492&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400024&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Lambert, M.S.,    Deeming, D.C., Sibly, R.M. &amp; Ayres, L.L., 1995. The relationship between    pecking behavior and growth rate of ostrich <i>(Struthio camelus)</i> chicks    in captivity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 46, 93-101. </font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602493&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400025&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Laugero, K.D. &amp;    Moberg, G.P., 2000. Energetic response to repeated restraint stress in rapidly    growing mice. Am. J. Phys. Endocr. Metab. 279, 44-49. </font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602494&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400026&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Leonard, M.L. &amp;    Fairfull, R.W., 1992. Effect of early handling on growth, mortality and feed    efficiency in White Leghorns. Appl. Anim.Behav. Sci. 34, 121-128. </font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602495&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400027&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Madeiros, C.A.,    1997. The use of rabbits in ostrich rearing. Vet. Rec. 140, 688.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602496&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400028&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Malecki, I.A. &amp;    Rybnik-Straskowska, P.K., 2011. In: The Welfare of Farmed Ratites. Eds Glatz,    P., Lunam, C. &amp; Malecki, I.A., Springer, Berlin. pp. 45-60. </font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602497&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400029&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Matsushima, T.,    Izawa, E., Aoki, N. &amp; Yanagihara, S., 2003. The mind through chicks' eyes:    memory, cognition and anticipation. Zool. Sci. 20, 395-408.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602498&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400030&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Mills, A.D. &amp;    Faure, J.M., 1990. Panic and hysteria in domestic fowl: a review. In: Social    Stress in Domestic Animals. Eds Zayan, R. &amp; Dantzer, R., Dordrecht: Kluwer    Academic Publishers. pp. 248-272. </font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602499&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400031&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Newberry, R.C.,    1995. Environmental enrichment: Increasing the biological relevance of captive    environ ments. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 44, 229-243.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602500&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400032&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Reed, H.J., Wilkins,    L.J., Austin, S.D. &amp; Gregory, N.G., 1993.The effect of environmental enrichment    during rearing on fear reactions and depopulation trauma in adult caged hens.    Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 36, 39-46.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602501&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400033&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Rushen, J., Taylor,    A.A. &amp; de Passille, A.M., 1999. Domestic animals' fear of humans and its    effect on their welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 65, 285-303.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602502&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400034&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Savatierra, N.A,    Marin, R.H., Arce, A. &amp; Martijena, I.D., 1994. Chick imprinting performance    and susceptibility to acute stress associated to flunitraze pan receptor increase.    Brain Res. 648, 39-45. </font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602503&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400035&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Slagsvold, T. &amp;    Hansen, B.T., 2008. Imprinting. Beh. Ecol. pp.1943-1948.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602504&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400036&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Verwoerd, D.J.,    Olivier, A.J., Henton, M.M., Gerde, G.H., Williams, R. &amp; Van der Walt, M.,    1997. Veterinary aspects of important diseases of ostrich chicks in South Africa.    In: Proc. 50th Anniversary Congress of the Veterinary Association of Namibia.    Namibian Veterinary Association, Windhoek, Swakopmund, Namibia, 3-38.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602505&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400037&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Zulkifli, I. &amp;    Azah, A.S.N., 2004. Fear and stress reactions and the performance of commercial    broiler chickens subjected to regular pleasant and unpleasant contacts with    human beings. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 88, 77-87.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=602506&pid=S0375-1589201200020000400038&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Copyright resides    with the authors in terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 South African    Licence. S ee: <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/za" target="_blank">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/za</a>    Condition of use: The user may copy, distribute, transmit and ad apt the work,    but must recognise the authors and the South African Journal of Animal Science.    <br>   <a name="back"></a><a href="#top">#</a> Corresponding author:<a href="mailto:schalkc@elsenburg.com">schalkc@elsenburg.com</a></font></p>      ]]></body>
<REFERENCES></REFERENCES<back>
<ref-list>
<ref id="B1">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Aganga]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Aganga]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.O.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Omphile]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[U.J.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Ostrich feeding and nutrition]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Pak. J. Nutr.]]></source>
<year>2003</year>
<volume>2</volume>
<page-range>60-67</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Barnett]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.L.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hemsworth]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P.H.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hennessy]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D.P.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[McCallum]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[T.H.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Newman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E.A.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[The effects of modifying the amount of human contact on behavioural, physiological and production responses of laying hens]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.]]></source>
<year>1994</year>
<volume>41</volume>
<page-range>87-100</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Barri]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F.R.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Navarro.]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.L.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Maciera]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[N.O.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Martella]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.B.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Rearing greater rhea (Rhea americana) chicks: is adoption more effective than the artificial intensive system?]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Br. Poult. Sci.]]></source>
<year>2005</year>
<volume>46</volume>
<page-range>22-25</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bolhuis]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.J.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Horn]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Generalization of learned preferences in filial imprinting]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Anim. Behav.]]></source>
<year>1992</year>
<volume>44</volume>
<page-range>185-187</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bubier]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[N.E.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Lambert]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.S.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Deeming]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D.C.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ayres]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L.L.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Sibly]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.M.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Time budget and colour preference (with specific reference to feeding) of ostrich (Struthio camelus) chicks in captivity]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Br. Poult. Sci.]]></source>
<year>1996</year>
<volume>37</volume>
<page-range>547-551</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bubier]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[N.E.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Paxton]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C.G.M.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bowers]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Deeming]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D.C.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Courtship behaviour of farmed ostriches in relations to humans]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Br. Poult. Sci.]]></source>
<year>1998</year>
<volume>39</volume>
<page-range>477-481</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bunter]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[K.L.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[The genetic analysis of reproduction and production traits recorded for farmed ostriches (Struthio camelus)]]></source>
<year>2002</year>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[Armidale ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[University New England]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bunter]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[K.L.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cloete]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.W.P.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Genetic parameters for egg-, chick-, and live-weight traits recorded in farmed ostriches (Struthio camelus)]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Livest. Prod. Sci.]]></source>
<year>2004</year>
<volume>91</volume>
<page-range>9-22</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cloete]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.W.P.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Malecki]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[I.A.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Breeder welfare: Past, present and future]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="editor">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Glatz]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Lunam]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Malecki]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[I.A.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[The Welfare of Farmed Ratites]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<page-range>13-44</page-range><publisher-loc><![CDATA[Berlin ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Springer]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cloete]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.W.P.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Engelbrecht]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Olivier]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.J.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bunter]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[K.L.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Direct response in breeding values to selection of ostriches for liveweight and reproduction]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Aust. J. Exp. Agric.]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<volume>48</volume>
<page-range>1247-1256</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Collins]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.W.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Siegel]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P.B.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Human handling, flock size and responses to an E. coli challenge in young chickens]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.]]></source>
<year>1987</year>
<volume>19</volume>
<page-range>183-188</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cooper]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.G.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Critical factors in ostrich (Struthio camelus australis) production: a focus on southern Africa]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Wrld's Poult. Sci. J.]]></source>
<year>2000</year>
<volume>56</volume>
<page-range>247-265</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cooper]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.G.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Ostrich (Struthio camelus) chick and grower nutrition]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Anim. Sci. J.]]></source>
<year>2004</year>
<volume>75</volume>
<page-range>487-490</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gvaryahu]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cunningham]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D.L.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Van Tienhoven]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Filial imprinting, environmental enrichments and music application effects on behavior and performance of meat strain chickens]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Poult. Sci.]]></source>
<year>1989</year>
<volume>68</volume>
<page-range>211-217</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B15">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hemsworth]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P.H.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Barnett]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.L.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Coleman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G.J.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[The human-animal relationship in agriculture and its consequence for the animal]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Anim. Welf.]]></source>
<year>1993</year>
<volume>2</volume>
<page-range>33-35</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B16">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hemsworth]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P.H.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Coleman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G.J.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Barnett]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.L.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.]]></source>
<year>1994</year>
<volume>39</volume>
<page-range>349-362</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B17">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hemsworth]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P.H.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Coleman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G.C.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cransberg]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P.H.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Barnett]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.L.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Human factors and the productivity and welfare of commercial broiler chickens: Research Report on Chicken Meat Research and Development Council Project]]></source>
<year>1996</year>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[Attwood ]]></publisher-loc>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B18">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Janse van Vuuren]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Faktore wat die oorlewing van volstruiskuikens (Struthio camelus) verhoog (in Afrikaans)]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[Port Elizabeth ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B19">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jones]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.B.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Regular handling and the domestic chick's fear of human beings: generalisation of response]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.]]></source>
<year>1994</year>
<volume>42</volume>
<page-range>129-143</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B20">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jones]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.B.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hughes]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[B.O.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Effects of regular handling on growth in male and female chicks of broiler and layer strains]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Br. Poult. Sci.]]></source>
<year>1981</year>
<volume>22</volume>
<page-range>1033</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B21">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jones]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.B.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Waddington]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Modification of fear in domestic chicks, Gallus gallus domestica, via regular handling and early environmental enrichment]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Anim. Behav.]]></source>
<year>1992</year>
<volume>43</volume>
<page-range>1021-1033</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B22">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jones]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.B.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Waddington]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Attenuation of the domestic chicks: fear of human beings via regular handling]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[search of a sensitive period]]></source>
<year>1993</year>
<volume>36</volume>
<page-range>185-l95</page-range><publisher-name><![CDATA[Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B23">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jones]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.B.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Harvey]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hughes]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[B.O.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Chadwick]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Growth and the plasma concentration of growth hormone and prolactin in chicks: effects of environmental enrichment, sex and strain]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Br. Poult. Sci.]]></source>
<year>1980</year>
<volume>21</volume>
<page-range>457-462</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B24">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Labaque]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.C.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Navarro]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.L.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Martella]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.B.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[A note on chick adoption: a complementary strategy for rearing rheas]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.]]></source>
<year>1999</year>
<volume>63</volume>
<page-range>165-170</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B25">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Lambert]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.S.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Deeming]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D.C.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Sibly]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.M.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ayres]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L.L.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[The relationship between pecking behavior and growth rate of ostrich (Struthio camelus) chicks in captivity]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.]]></source>
<year>1995</year>
<volume>46</volume>
<page-range>93-101</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B26">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Laugero]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[K.D.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Moberg]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G.P.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Energetic response to repeated restraint stress in rapidly growing mice]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Am. J. Phys. Endocr. Metab.]]></source>
<year>2000</year>
<volume>279</volume>
<page-range>44-49</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B27">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Leonard]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.L.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Fairfull]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.W.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Effect of early handling on growth, mortality and feed efficiency in White Leghorns]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Appl. Anim.Behav. Sci.]]></source>
<year>1992</year>
<volume>34</volume>
<page-range>121-128</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B28">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Madeiros]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C.A.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[The use of rabbits in ostrich rearing]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Vet. Rec.]]></source>
<year>1997</year>
<volume>140</volume>
<page-range>688</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B29">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Malecki]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[I.A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rybnik-Straskowska]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P.K.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<person-group person-group-type="editor">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Glatz]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Lunam]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Malecki]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[I.A.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[The Welfare of Farmed Ratites]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<page-range>45-60</page-range><publisher-loc><![CDATA[Berlin ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Springer]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B30">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Matsushima]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[T.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Izawa]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Aoki]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[N.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Yanagihara]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[The mind through chicks' eyes: memory, cognition and anticipation]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Zool. Sci.]]></source>
<year>2003</year>
<volume>20</volume>
<page-range>395-408</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B31">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mills]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.D.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Faure]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.M.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Panic and hysteria in domestic fowl: a review]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="editor">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Zayan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Dantzer]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Social Stress in Domestic Animals]]></source>
<year>1990</year>
<page-range>248-272</page-range><publisher-loc><![CDATA[Dordrecht ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Kluwer Academic Publishers]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B32">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Newberry]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.C.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Environmental enrichment: Increasing the biological relevance of captive environ ments]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.]]></source>
<year>1995</year>
<volume>44</volume>
<page-range>229-243</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B33">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Reed]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[H.J.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wilkins]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L.J.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Austin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.D.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gregory]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[N.G.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[The effect of environmental enrichment during rearing on fear reactions and depopulation trauma in adult caged hens]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.]]></source>
<year>1993</year>
<volume>36</volume>
<page-range>39-46</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B34">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rushen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Taylor]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[de Passille]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.M.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Domestic animals' fear of humans and its effect on their welfare]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.]]></source>
<year>1999</year>
<volume>65</volume>
<page-range>285-303</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B35">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Savatierra]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[N.A,]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Marin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.H.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Arce]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Martijena]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[I.D.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Chick imprinting performance and susceptibility to acute stress associated to flunitraze pan receptor increase]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Brain Res.]]></source>
<year>1994</year>
<volume>648</volume>
<page-range>39-45</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B36">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Slagsvold]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[T.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hansen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[B.T.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Imprinting]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Beh. Ecol.]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<page-range>1943-1948</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B37">
<nlm-citation citation-type="confpro">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Verwoerd]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D.J.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Olivier]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.J.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Henton]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.M.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gerde]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G.H.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Williams]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Van der Walt]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Veterinary aspects of important diseases of ostrich chicks in South Africa]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[]]></source>
<year>1997</year>
<conf-name><![CDATA[50 Anniversary Congress of the Veterinary Association of Namibia]]></conf-name>
<conf-loc> </conf-loc>
<page-range>3-38</page-range><publisher-loc><![CDATA[WindhoekSwakopmund ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Namibian Veterinary Association]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B38">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Zulkifli]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[I.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Azah]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.S.N.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Fear and stress reactions and the performance of commercial broiler chickens subjected to regular pleasant and unpleasant contacts with human beings]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.]]></source>
<year>2004</year>
<volume>88</volume>
<page-range>77-87</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
