From:
Sukie Crandall
Date: 2008-02-19 18:01:13 UTC
Subject: [ferrethealth] abstracts just added to PubMed
To: ferrethealth@yahoogroups.com
BEGIN QUOTED ABSTRACTS
Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2008 Jan-Feb;121(1-2):1-10.
[Clinical evaluation of three medetomidine--midazolam--ketamine=20
combinations for neutering of ferrets (Mustela putorius furo)]
[Article in German]
Schernthaner A, Lendl C, Busch R, Henke J.
Zentrum f=FCr Pr=E4klinische Forschung, Technische Universit=E4t M=FCnchen.=
wa.schernthaner@t-online.de
33 ferrets (Mustela putorius furo, 11 females, 22 males, ASA I-II)=20
were neutered in a combination anaesthesia with medetomidine,=20
midazolam and ketamine. The animals were randomized into 3 groups. All=20
animals received 20 microg/kg BW medetomidine and 0.5 mg/kg BW=20
midazolam. The three groups differed regarding dosis and way of=20
application of ketamine (IM10 =3D 10 mg/kg BW intramuscularly; IM07 =3D 7 =
mg/kg BW intramuscularly; SC10 =3D 10 mg/kg BW subcutaneously). After 30 =
minutes anaesthesia was partially antagonised with 100 microg/kg BW=20
atipamezole i.m.. Sedation, muscle relaxation, analgesia, and overall=20
anaesthetic impression were compared by a scoring protocol. Reactions=20
to painful stimuli of clamping the spermatic cord or the ovarial=20
ligament including the A. ovarica were judged, too. All animals lost=20
their righting reflex and could be placed in dorsal recumbency.=20
Induction and recovery time were significantly the shortest in study=20
group IM10 with 1.73 +/- 0.3 and 9.73 +/- 4.6 min respectively.=20
Recovery was significantly prolonged in group SC10 with 30.27 +/- 15.6=20
min. The MMK-anaesthesia with 10 mg/kg ketamine i.m. is very useful=20
for neutering ferrets. Respiratory depression and bradycardia=20
typically for medetomidine were seen in all three combinations, but=20
quickly reversed after partial antagonisation. Induction and=20
intubation, followed by inhalation anaesthesia, were possible with all=20
three regimes.
Neuroscience. 2007 Dec 23 [Epub ahead of print]
Sound localization behavior in ferrets: Comparison of acoustic=20
orientation and approach-to-target responses.
Nodal FR, Bajo VM, Parsons CH, Schnupp JW, King AJ.
Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, Sherrington Building,=20
University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PT, UK.
Auditory localization experiments typically either require subjects to=20
judge the location of a sound source from a discrete set of response=20
alternatives or involve measurements of the accuracy of orienting=20
responses made toward the source location. To compare the results=20
obtained by both methods, we trained ferrets by positive conditioning=20
to stand on a platform at the center of a circular arena prior to=20
stimulus presentation and then approach the source of a broadband=20
noise burst delivered from 1 of 12 loudspeakers arranged at 30 degrees=20
intervals in the horizontal plane. Animals were rewarded for making a=20
correct choice. We also obtained a non-categorized measure of=20
localization accuracy by recording head-orienting movements made=20
during the first second following stimulus onset. The accuracy of the=20
approach-to-target responses declined as the stimulus duration was=20
reduced, particularly for lateral and posterior locations, although=20
responses to sounds presented in the frontal region of space and=20
directly behind the animal remained quite accurate. Head movements had=20
a latency of approximately 200 ms and varied systematically in=20
amplitude with stimulus direction. However, the final head bearing=20
progressively undershot the target with increasing eccentricity and=20
rarely exceeded 60 degrees to each side of the midline. In contrast to=20
the approach-to-target responses, the accuracy of the head orienting=20
responses did not change much with stimulus duration, suggesting that=20
the improvement in percent correct scores with longer stimuli was due,=20
at least in part, to re-sampling of the acoustical stimulus after the=20
initial head turn had been made. Nevertheless, for incorrect trials,=20
head orienting responses were more closely correlated with the=20
direction approached by the animals than with the actual target=20
direction, implying that at least part of the neural circuitry for=20
translating sensory spatial signals into motor commands is shared by=20
these two behaviors.
C R Biol. 2008 Mar;331(3):248-254. Epub 2008 Jan 28.
Kin recognition versus familiarity in a solitary mustelid, the=20
European polecat Mustela putorius.
Lod=E9 T.
UMR CNRS 6552 =C9thologie=96=C9volution=96=C9cologie, universit=E9 Rennes-1=
&=20
Universit=E9 d'Angers, facult=E9 des sciences, Belle Beille, F-49045=20
Angers cedex, France.
The aim of this experimental study was to investigate kin=20
discrimination in the polecat and to analyse the ontogeny of=20
interactions. Juvenile polecats (ten males and nine females) had been=20
raised under four distinct experimental conditions: 1, kin, familiar;=20
2, kin, unfamiliar; 3, non-kin, familiar; 4, non-kin, unfamiliar.=20
During dyadic encounters between polecats in neutral enclosures, the=20
number of positive (tolerance), negative (aggression), intermediate=20
(intimidation), and neutral interactions (no direct interactions) were=20
recorded at two different ages of the animals (50 and 70 days old).=20
Male-male encounters were characterised by more aggressive behaviour=20
than female-female ones. The proportion of these negative interactions=20
increased with age, while the proportion of positive interactions=20
decreased. Although aggressive behaviours varied among groups, the=20
reaction did never differ with the kinship. Kin selection theory=20
provides successful explanations for a wide range of phenomena, but=20
our results suggest that multiple mechanisms running simultaneously=20
might be involved in social behaviours. Familiarity clearly influenced=20
the social behaviour of polecats and might be involved in a kin=20
facilitation effect favouring interactions. Animals raised together=20
demonstrated more positive and less negative interactions, so that,=20
despite the individualistic way of life of the polecat,=20
familiarisation may result in more tolerance, emphasising that=20
solitary species may provide significant information on social life.=20
Anyway, familiarisation in polecat may be regarded as a cognitive form=20
of recognition. To cite this article: T. Lod=E9, C. R. Biologies 331=20
(2008).
END QUOTED ABSTRACTS
Sukie (not a vet)
Recommended ferret health links:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/ferrethealth/
http://ferrethealth.org/archive/
http://www.afip.org/ferrets/index.html
http://www.miamiferret.org/fhc/
http://www.ferretcongress.org/
http://www.trifl.org/index.shtml
http://homepage.mac.com/sukie/sukiesferretlinks.html
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ferrethealth/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ferrethealth/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:ferrethealth-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:ferrethealth-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ferrethealth-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/