Developing a systematic strategy incorporating ethical, animal welfare and practical principles to guide the genetic improvement of dairy cattle

Scientific assessment of animal welfare

Animal welfare is a state within the animal and a scientific perspective provides methodologies for evidence-based assessment of an animal's welfare. A simplistic definition of animal welfare might be how the animal feels now. Affective experiences including emotions, are subjective states so cannot be measured directly in animals, but there are informative indirect physiological and behavioural indices that can be cautiously used to interpret such experiences. This review enunciates several key science-based frameworks for understanding animal welfare. The biological functioning and affective state frameworks were initially seen as competing, but a recent more unified approach is that biological functioning is taken to include affective experiences and affective experiences are recognised as products of biological functioning, and knowledge of the dynamic interactions between the two is considered to be fundamental to managing and improving animal welfare. The value of these two frameworks in understanding the welfare of group-housed sows is reviewed. The majority of studies of the welfare of group-housed sows have employed the biological functioning framework to infer compromised sow welfare, on the basis that suboptimal biological functioning accompanies negative affective states such as sow hunger, pain, fear, helplessness, frustration and anger. Group housing facilitates social living, but group housing of gestating sows raises different welfare considerations to stall housing, such as high levels of aggression, injuries and stress, at least for several days after mixing, as well as subordinate sows being underfed due to competition at feeding. This paper highlights the challenges and potential opportunities for the continued improvement in sow management through well-focused research and multidisciplinary assessment of animal welfare. In future the management of sentient animals will require the promotion of positive affective experiences in animals and this is likely to be a major focus for animal welfare science activity in the early twenty-first century.

Is There a Need for a More Expansive Use of Ethics and Values in Reflecting on the Use of Animals in Scientific Research?

Simple Summary

Debates about animal research are often polarized. On one side, increased knowledge, medical treatments or enhanced animal production are seen to justify harms. On the other, animals have rights constraining their use. Both sides fail to provide adequate support for this contentious use of animals. Reflecting the richness of ethics, it is suggested that empathy and respect for the animal, and greater acknowledgement of the value of experiences and care could also be considered. Along with a more informed understanding of the benefits of research and of the aims of animal rights, a more sophisticated ethic may reflect the common ground between the poles of the debate.

Abstract

Although reflecting a long tradition of moral reflection that the use of animals is acceptable as long as it is humane, the tension between causing harm to animals in research and the benefits to humans can nevertheless be troubling. Utilitarian arguments that appeal to the value of those practices in sustaining and enhancing human lives, and rights-based arguments which seek to constrain them, can be inadequate. Reflecting a more engaging, inclusive and sophisticated understanding of human activity, justification for animal use could be expanded to reflect the fullness and richness of ethical thinking. This might see more explicit inclusion of perspectives borne of virtues, caring, experiences, and respect for the essence of the animal, and different ways of understanding and knowing animals, values drawn from the middle ground of commonly acceptable human-animal relationships. Such values, already clearly evident in research, could be more widely integrated into arguments justifying animal use. A more expansive approach would not only reflect reality and acknowledge that costs and benefits are shared more widely, but it might result in more equitable, effective and humane science. It might also serve to reduce some of the tension long evident in the relationship between humans and animals.

The functional significance of cattle major histocompatibility complex class I genetic diversity

Current concerns about food security highlight the importance of maintaining productive and disease-resistant livestock populations. Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I genes have a central role in immunity. A high level of diversity in these genes allows populations to survive despite exposure to rapidly evolving pathogens. This review aims to describe the key features of MHC class I genetic diversity in cattle and to discuss their role in disease resistance. Discussion centers on data derived from the cattle genome sequence and studies addressing MHC class I gene expression and function. The impact of intensive selection on MHC diversity is also considered. A high level of complexity in MHC class I genes and functionally related gene families is revealed. This highlights the need for increased efforts to determine key genetic components that govern cattle immune responses to disease, which is increasingly important in the face of changing human and environmental demands.

Animal learning and training: implications for animal welfare

Exotic animals are housed in a variety of settings, from pets at home, as display animals housed in wildlife centers and zoos, to those kept for interactive and outreach programs. The behavioral management program and medical care are major parts of an excellent animal care program. Because animals learn all the time, albeit through different mechanisms, animals are almost always "in training." Understanding animal learning when caring for and treating animals can greatly improve their welfare during experiences that are often related to involuntary procedures and where animals have little control over living conditions or procedures.

Extending ideas about animal welfare assessment to include 'quality of life' and related concepts

Ideas within the animal welfare science arena have evolved continuously throughout the last 30 years, and will continue to do so. This paper outlines some of these developments. These included reformulation of the five freedoms concept into the five domains of potential welfare compromise. This accommodated weaknesses in the former by distinguishing between the physical/functional and the mental factors that contribute to an animal's welfare state. This development reflected a rising scientific acceptance that the mental experiences of animals were legitimate foci for study and highlighted that what the animal itself experiences represents its welfare status. Initially, most concepts of animal welfare emphasised predominantly negative subjective experiences, such as thirst, hunger and pain, and negative affective states or feelings including anxiety, fear and boredom, but today positive experiences or emotions such as satiety, vitality, reward, contentment, curiosity and playfulness are also considered to be important. During the same period, the focus shifted from evaluating the impacts of individual mental subjective experiences or emotions towards seeking a more comprehensive, multifactorial understanding. The five domains concept was specifically designed to achieve this. Subsequent notions about quality of life (QoL) had the same objective, and emphasised the importance of positive experiences. However, some approaches to QoL assessment relied heavily on empathetic speculation about what animals may experience subjectively and this raised concerns about inappropriate anthropomorphic projections. Such pitfalls may be minimised when informed personnel rigorously apply objectively based methodologies to QoL assessments limited to a short time frame. It is clear that both formal and somewhat less formal QoL assessments of this type are already used to guide decision-making about the ongoing care and therapeutic management of animals on a daily basis. However, application of the recently introduced concepts of 'a life not worth living', 'a life worth avoiding', 'a life worth living' and 'a good life' is problematical, because extending the assessment time scale to the whole of life is attended by a number of as yet unresolved difficulties. Accordingly, their value in the practical management of animals is limited so that, at present, reliance on the minimum standards and recommendations for best practice outlined in codes of practice or welfare will continue to be necessary and worthwhile. Nevertheless, these concepts have value in providing a contextual theme that strongly focuses attention on the promotion of a lifelong QoL with an overall balance that is positive.

Trait selection and welfare of genetically engineered animals in agriculture

The release of the Final Guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration on the commercialization of genetically engineered animals has sparked renewed discussion over the ethical, consumer, and regulatory implications of transgenesis in animal agriculture. Animal welfare critiques have focused on unexpected phenotypic effects in animals used in transgenic research, rather than on the health and welfare implications of the intended productivity enhancement. Unless breeding goals are redefined to reflect social concerns, the occurrence and magnitude of undesirable side effects may increase and consumer confidence in the nascent technology may be undermined.

Defining animal welfare - does consistency matter?

Animal welfare has many varied understandings reflecting social concerns for, and the scientific assessments of, the way animals are treated. They range from the absence of suffering, to where the animal is in a state of complete mental and physical health and in harmony with its environment, to an economic or socio-political understanding reflecting human preferences. Animal welfare thus has both empirical (scientific) and moral components. It is suggested that the term should be considered as a judgement to be undertaken by combining varied understandings. Furthermore, it may be more important to acknowledge underlying values and assumptions, both moral and scientific, than to risk excluding valid viewpoints through pursuing a prescriptive definition.