Ethical regulation and animal science: why animal behaviour is special

Human interventions in a behavioural experiment for Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus)

Experiments are widely used to investigate the behaviour and cognition of animals. While the automation of experiments to avoid potential experimenter bias is sometimes possible, not all experiments can be conducted without human presence. This is particularly true for large animals in captivity, which are often managed by professional handlers. For the safety of the animals and experimenters, a handler must be present during behavioural studies with certain species. It is not always clear to what extent cues provided by handlers affect the animals, and therefore the experimental results. In this study, we investigate handler interventions during the training process for a behavioural experiment with Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in Nepal. We show that elephant handlers (mahouts) intervened to guide elephants in performing the learning task using vocal and behavioural cues, despite experimenters requesting minimal intervention. We found that although the frequency of mahout interventions did not decrease as the training progressed, the nature of their interventions changed. We also found more non-verbal than verbal cues across the training. Our results suggest that guidance from handlers may be common in behavioural studies, and continued consideration should be put into experimental design to reduce or account for cues that animals may receive from humans. This study also emphasises the need to take into account the presence of humans in interpreting the results of animal behavioural experiments, which not only presents challenges to behavioural research, but also represents opportunities for further study.

Variability of laying hen behaviour depending on the breed

OBJECTIVE

For many generations, most species of farm animals have been subjected to intense and strictly targeted selection for improvement of their performance traits. This has led to substantial changes in animal anatomy and physiology, which resulted in considerable differences between the current animal breeds and their wild ancestors. The aim of the study was to determine whether there is breed-specific variability in behaviour as well as differences in emotional reactivity and preferences of laying hens.

METHODS

The investigations involved 50 Green-legged Partridge, 50 Polbar, and 50 Leghorn hens. All birds were kept in the same conditions, and the behavioural tests were carried out at 30 weeks of age. We used the tonic immobility test and a modified open-field test including such objects as water, commercial feed, feed enriched with cereal grains, finely cut straw, and insect larvae, a sandpit, a mirror, and a shelter imitating a hen nest.

RESULTS

The research results demonstrate that the birds of the analysed breeds differ not only in the excitability and emotional reactivity but, importantly, also in the preferences for environment-enriching elements. Ensuring hens' well-being should therefore be based on environmental modifications that will facilitate acquisition of essential elements of chickens' behaviour. The greatest emotional reactivity was found in the Leghorn breed, which may be a result of correlated selection aimed at an increase in chicken productivity.

CONCLUSION

The differences in the behaviour of the birds from the analysed breeds indicate that laying hens cannot be regarded as one group of animals with the same environmental requirements.

Using the Five Domains Model to Assess the Adverse Impacts of Husbandry, Veterinary, and Equitation Interventions on Horse Welfare

Simple Summary

Using an adaptation of the domain-based welfare assessment model, a panel of horse welfare professionals (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement) assessed the perceived harms, if any, resulting from 116 interventions that are commonly applied to horses. Scores for Domain 5 (the integrated mental impact) gathered after extensive discussion during a four-day workshop aligned well with overall impact scores assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop, although some rankings changed after workshop participation. Domain 4 (Behaviour) had the strongest association with Domain 5, whilst Domain 1 (Nutrition) had the weakest association with Domain 5, implying that the panellists considered commonly applied nutritional interventions to have less of a bearing on subjective mental state than commonly applied behavioural restrictions. The workshop defined each intervention, and stated assumptions around each, resulting in a set of exemplar procedures that could be used in future equine welfare assessments.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to conduct a series of paper-based exercises in order to assess the negative (adverse) welfare impacts, if any, of common interventions on domestic horses across a broad range of different contexts of equine care and training. An international panel (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement; n = 16) met over a four-day period to define and assess these interventions, using an adaptation of the domain-based assessment model. The interventions were considered within 14 contexts: C1 Weaning; C2 Diet; C3 Housing; C4 Foundation training; C5 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly medical); C6 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly surgical); C7 Elective procedures; C8 Care procedures; C9 Restraint for management procedures; C10 Road transport; C11 Activity—competition; C12 Activity—work; C13 Activity—breeding females; and C14 Activity—breeding males. Scores on a 1–10 scale for Domain 5 (the mental domain) gathered during the workshop were compared with overall impact scores on a 1–10 scale assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop. The most severe (median and interquartile range, IQR) impacts within each context were identified during the workshop as: C1 abrupt, individual weaning (10 IQR 1); C2 feeding 100% low-energy concentrate (8 IQR 2.5); C3 indoor tie stalls with no social contact (9 IQR 1.5); C4 both (i) dropping horse with ropes (9 IQR 0.5) and forced flexion (9 IQR 0.5); C5 long-term curative medical treatments (8 IQR 3); C6 major deep intracavity surgery (8.5 IQR 1); C7 castration without veterinary supervision (10 IQR 1); C8 both (i) tongue ties (8 IQR 2.5) and (ii) restrictive nosebands (8 IQR 2.5); C9 ear twitch (8 IQR 1); C10 both (i) individual transport (7.00 IQR 1.5) and group transport with unfamiliar companions (7 IQR 1.5); C11 both (i) jumps racing (8 IQR 2.5) and Western performance (8 IQR 1.5); C12 carriage and haulage work (6 IQR 1.5); C13 wet nurse during transition between foals (7.5 IQR 3.75); and C14 teaser horse (7 IQR 8). Associations between pre-workshop and workshop scores were high, but some rankings changed after workshop participation, particularly relating to breeding practices. Domain 1 had the weakest association with Domain 5. The current article discusses the use of the domain-based model in equine welfare assessment, and offers a series of assumptions within each context that future users of the same approach may make when assessing animal welfare under the categories reported here. It also discusses some limitations in the framework that was used to apply the model.

Thinking chickens: a review of cognition, emotion, and behavior in the domestic chicken

Domestic chickens are members of an order, Aves, which has been the focus of a revolution in our understanding of neuroanatomical, cognitive, and social complexity. At least some birds are now known to be on par with many mammals in terms of their level of intelligence, emotional sophistication, and social interaction. Yet, views of chickens have largely remained unrevised by this new evidence. In this paper, I examine the peer-reviewed scientific data on the leading edge of cognition, emotions, personality, and sociality in chickens, exploring such areas as self-awareness, cognitive bias, social learning and self-control, and comparing their abilities in these areas with other birds and other vertebrates, particularly mammals. My overall conclusion is that chickens are just as cognitively, emotionally and socially complex as most other birds and mammals in many areas, and that there is a need for further noninvasive comparative behavioral research with chickens as well as a re-framing of current views about their intelligence.

What's Special about the Ethical Challenges of Studying Disorders with Altered Brain Activity?

Where there is no viable alternative, studies of neuronal activity are conducted on animals. The use of animals, particularly for invasive studies of the brain, raises a number of ethical issues. Practical or normative ethics are enforced by legislation, in relation to the dominant welfare guidelines developed in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Guidelines have typically been devised to cover all areas of biomedical research using animals in general, and thus lack any specific focus on neuroscience studies at the level of the ethics, although details of the specific welfare recommendations are different for invasive studies of the brain. Ethically, there is no necessary distinction between neuroscience and other biomedical research in that the brain is a final common path for suffering, irrespective of whether this involves any direct experience of pain. One exception arises in the case of in vitro studies, which are normally considered as an acceptable replacement for in vivo studies. However, to the extent sentience is possible, maintaining central nervous system tissue outside the body naturally raises ethical questions. Perhaps the most intractable challenge to the ethical use of animals in order to model neuronal disorder is presented by the logical impasse in the argument that the animal is similar enough to justify the validity of the experimental model, but sufficiently different in sentience and capacity for suffering, for the necessary experimental procedures to be permissible.

Do farmers and scientists differ in their understanding and assessment of farm animal welfare?

In response to an increased public awareness regarding how livestock are reared, animal welfare scientists have attempted to develop new methods of welfare assessment at the farm level. Furthermore, in recent years they have increasingly moved away from the conventional approach of evaluating the provision of resources necessary to ensure good welfare, and have instead focused on the use of animal-based measures of welfare. In contrast, it is believed that farmers use mostly resource-based and management-based measures (eg the provision of food, water and housing) when assessing the welfare of their animals. They also seem to be driven more by economic and financial concerns than by the welfare of the animals per se, when it comes to the provision of animal welfare. Different approaches to the definition and assessment of farm animal welfare were explored in work carried out at Newcastle University as part of the Welfare Quality® project by both social and welfare scientists. Social scientists explored farmers’ perceptions and understanding of animal welfare, whilst welfare scientists developed animal-based measures of welfare for use in a prototype on-farm welfare monitoring system. Based on two separate surveys, this paper focuses on UK farmers’ perception and understanding of animal welfare and their criteria of assessment in contrast with those employed by welfare scientists, using a specific case study of pigs. Results show that, despite scientists being unaware of the findings from the farmer survey, they produced a set of measures to assess welfare which were very similar to those used by farmers. However, ‘instinctive’ terms used by farmers to describe (positive or negative) animal behaviour did not bear any relation to more objective welfare measures. Compared with conventional monitoring systems which focus more on the provision of resources to promote good welfare than on the animal itself, the prototype monitoring system may be more acceptable to farmers given that it uses similar animal-based measures to assess welfare to those they use themselves, and furthermore, the focus is on the animal.

Ethical issues faced by field primatologists: asking the relevant questions

Field primatologists face unusual ethical issues. We study animals rather than people and receive research approval from animal care rather than ethics committees. However, animal care evaluation forms are developed from concerns about laboratory animal research and are based on the "Three R's" for humane treatment of captive experimental subjects (replacement, reduction and refinement), which are only debatably relevant to field research. Scientists who study wild, free-ranging primates in host countries experience many ethical dilemmas seldom dealt with in animal care forms. This paper reviews the ethical issues many field primatologists say they face and how these might be better addressed by animal care forms. The ethical issues arising for field researchers are divided into three categories: "Presence, Protocols and People" and for each the most frequent issues are described. The most commonly mentioned ethical concern arising from our presence in the field is the possibility of disease transmission. Although most primate field studies employ only observational protocols, the practice of habituating our study animals to close human presence is an ethical concern for many since it can lessen the animals' fear of all humans, thereby facilitating undesirable behaviors (e.g., crop-raiding) and rendering them vulnerable to harm. Field primatologists who work in host countries must observe national laws and local traditions. As conservationists, primatologists must often negotiate between the resource needs and cultural practices of local people and the interests of the nonhuman primates. Many say they face more ethical dilemmas arising from human interactions than from research on the animals per se. This review concludes with suggestions for relevant questions to ask on animal care forms, and actions that field primatologists can take to better inform animal care committees about the common ethical issues we experience as well as how to develop guidelines for addressing them.

Ethics: views from IACUC members

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) members were interviewed on various ethical matters, including ethics, animal ethics, science and ethics, and the use of animals in research, in order to explore their implicit ethical framework. The results revealed that IACUC members entertain rich and diverse beliefs about ethics, that are part of an implicit ethical framework which relates to different domains of knowledge, such as biology (differences between human and animals), psychology (e.g. affective relationships with pets), and so on. The results also revealed that IACUC members hold quite a restrictive view on both animal ethics and animal use in research, and that they apply implicit ethical notions, such as respect and justice, to some elements (e.g. ethical rules) of the explicit ethical framework they are provided with when performing ethical evaluations of animal use. The study suggests that IACUC members should be provided with more up-to-date information on topics such as animal ethics and animal use in research.

Environmental enrichment for maned wolves (Chrysocyon brachyurus): group and individual effects

Procedures that increase foraging and exploratory behaviours are generally accepted as effective at improving welfare and reducing stereotypies in captive animals. To determine the effect of food and toy enrichment on the behaviour and hormonal levels of maned wolves (Chrysocyon brachyurus), 11 wolves were submitted to a baseline-enrichment-baseline schedule with four enrichment conditions: food scattering, toy presentation, edible toy presentation, and a combination of food and toy conditions. Behaviour and glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations (GCM) were assessed throughout the experiment. Our hypotheses were that enrichment procedures would lead to an increase in activity in the short and long term, a decrease in pacing, and a reduction in GCM concentrations. We also hypothesised that the concentrations of GCM would show a correlation with behaviour. Enrichment conditions increased immediate locomotion but did not produce long-term changes of activity nor reduced pacing. The procedures had a clear effect on individual behaviour and induced, under food enrichment conditions, an increased interest in food. Enrichment did not lead to decreased GCM concentration in the group as a whole, but there was a tendency for male and female animals to differ in hormonal reactions to environmental change. A positive correlation between GCM concentrations and pacing behaviour and a negative correlation between GCM concentrations and social behaviour were found. Results suggest that food scattering as an enrichment procedure may be used with maned wolves to enhance welfare, whilst also revealing the importance of taking individual and gender differences into account when planning enrichment techniques.

Evaluation of animal models of neurobehavioral disorders

Animal models play a central role in all areas of biomedical research. The process of animal model building, development and evaluation has rarely been addressed systematically, despite the long history of using animal models in the investigation of neuropsychiatric disorders and behavioral dysfunctions. An iterative, multi-stage trajectory for developing animal models and assessing their quality is proposed. The process starts with defining the purpose(s) of the model, preferentially based on hypotheses about brain-behavior relationships. Then, the model is developed and tested. The evaluation of the model takes scientific and ethical criteria into consideration.Model development requires a multidisciplinary approach. Preclinical and clinical experts should establish a set of scientific criteria, which a model must meet. The scientific evaluation consists of assessing the replicability/reliability, predictive, construct and external validity/generalizability, and relevance of the model. We emphasize the role of (systematic and extended) replications in the course of the validation process. One may apply a multiple-tiered 'replication battery' to estimate the reliability/replicability, validity, and generalizability of result.Compromised welfare is inherent in many deficiency models in animals. Unfortunately, 'animal welfare' is a vaguely defined concept, making it difficult to establish exact evaluation criteria. Weighing the animal's welfare and considerations as to whether action is indicated to reduce the discomfort must accompany the scientific evaluation at any stage of the model building and evaluation process. Animal model building should be discontinued if the model does not meet the preset scientific criteria, or when animal welfare is severely compromised. The application of the evaluation procedure is exemplified using the rat with neonatal hippocampal lesion as a proposed model of schizophrenia.In a manner congruent to that for improving animal models, guided by the procedure expounded upon in this paper, the developmental and evaluation procedure itself may be improved by careful definition of the purpose(s) of a model and by defining better evaluation criteria, based on the proposed use of the model.

NORMAS DE BEM-ESTAR PARA SUÍNOS SUBMETIDOS A SISTEMA INTENSIVO DE PRODUÇÃO

O bem-estar animal é hoje uma das mais importantes barreiras não-tarifárias do comérciointernacional de proteína animal. A União Européia, junto com os Estados Unidos daAmérica e a Austrália são importantes exportadores de carne suína. As condições dealojamento variam entre os países, pois depende do clima, assim como o transportedesses animais também é distinto em cada parte do mundo. Esta pesquisa teve comoobjetivo descrever um cenário a respeito das exigências legais, determinada pela presençade normas e legislações adotadas. Para esta avaliação foram eleitos itens críticos eatribuídos escores variando de 1 a 5 (muito ruim a muito bom), em função de existênciae adoção de normas para cada item. Foram calculadas as médias e aplicada uma análisecomparativa de médias, de forma a evidenciar as carências específicas. Os resultadosapontam que os paises da União Européia, os Estados Unidos e a Austrália já elaborame adotam suas normas e leis que objetivam atender a certas demandas de bem-estar,enquanto o Brasil mostra estar defasado. Face às novas demandas internacionais debem-estar animal, há necessidade de atualização da legislação brasileira, tendo em vistaque o país é um importante exportador de carne suína.