Email of the week

From Emma, possibly just days from when her baby arrives, confirming Heather’s result that brainy parrot species are more at risk for oral stereotypic behaviour (OSB) (woo hoo!):

Email of the week

From me this time, to Aimee. Very sensible experimental design advice actually, but I’ll just leave it at that.

 

Disclosures from Meagher and accomplices

Becky just made a truly magnificent find. It begins“Your restricted pet is in all probability comparably as depleted as you think it is by all accounts, according to another examination from the University of Guelph in Canada, which has, out of nowhere, estimated signs of exhaustion in an animal” … and it takes it from there.

We had thought this was a Google Translate hack job from another language. But no, the site is based in Rhode Island, and every post is written like this. It’s a gem!

Saw Becky in person last month too, as she was over during the Christmas break, and very lovely it was too. Despite the inevitable horrors of taking up a faculty position, she seems to be thriving. And she even found time to help Andrea, who’s analysing our third “mink boredom” study (for which coverage like this, well, we can only dream …)

 

Yet more monkeys

After spotting an error and as a consequence getting yet more data from California, Andrea can report that her final database contains a cool 5, 770 animals. Not bad eh?

Is this enough data for Andrea?

The Excel data we need for Andrea’s PhD from the California National Primate Research Center arrived today. With info. from over 4000 monkeys, in over 136,000 rows, this should keep her quiet for a while…

Congrats to me and Andrea!

We won the UFAW ‘3 Rs’ award for her work with two National Primate Centers! (We got the letter a couple of weeks ago actually, but had to keep it quiet ’til UFAW created a press release.)

Email of the week

From Lauren, as she does some forensic analyses of our ‘cat faces’ results (one result is odd, and we need to figure out why):

Makes you feel so safe and protected, no?