Using the Five Domains Model to develop welfare assessment guidelines for Thoroughbred horses in New Zealand

The welfare of ill and injured feedlot cattle: a review of the literature and implications for managing feedlot hospital and chronic pens

By definition, ill and injured animals are on the negative valence of animal welfare. For beef cattle kept in feedlot settings, advances in cattle health management have resulted in a greater understanding and prevention of illness and injury. However, the management of cattle once they become ill and injured is an understudied area, and there are gaps in knowledge that could inform evidence-based decision-making and strengthen welfare for this population. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the acquired knowledge regarding ill and injured feedlot cattle welfare, focusing on existing knowledge gaps and implications for hospital and chronic pen management and welfare assurance. Ill and injured feedlot cattle consist of acutely impaired animals with short-term health conditions that resolve with treatment and chronically impaired animals with long-term health conditions that may be difficult to treat. A literature search identified 110 articles that mentioned welfare and ill and injured feedlot cattle, but the population of interest in most of these articles was healthy cattle, not ill and injured cattle. Articles about managing ill and injured cattle in specialized hospital (n = 12) or chronic (n = 2) pens were even more sparse. Results from this literature search will be used to outline the understanding of acutely and chronically ill and injured feedlot cattle, including common dispositions and welfare considerations, behavior during convalescence, and strategies for identifying and managing ill and injured cattle. Finally, by working through specific ailments common in commercial feedlot environments, we illustrate how the Five Domains Model can be used to explore feelings and experiences and subsequent welfare state of individual ill or injured feedlot cattle. Using this approach and our knowledge of current industry practices, we identify relevant animal-based outcomes and critical research questions to strengthen knowledge in this area. A better understanding of this overlooked topic will inform future research and the development of evidence-based guidelines to help producers care for this vulnerable population.

Rethinking the utility of the Five Domains model

The Five Domains model is influential in contemporary studies of animal welfare. It was originally presented as a conceptual model to understand the types of impact that procedures may impose on experimental animals. Its application has since broadened to cover a wide range of animal species and forms of animal use. However, it has also increasingly been applied as an animal welfare assessment tool, which is the focus of this paper. Several critical limitations associated with this approach have not been widely acknowledged, including that: (1) it relies upon expert or stakeholder opinion, with little transparency around the selection of these individuals; (2) quantitative scoring is typically attempted despite the absence of clear principles for aggregation of welfare measures and few attempts to account for uncertainty; (3) there have been few efforts to measure the repeatability of findings; and (4) it does not consider indirect and unintentional impacts such as those imposed on non-target animals. These deficiencies lead to concerns surrounding testability, repeatability and the potential for manipulation. We provide suggestions for refinement of how the Five Domains model is applied to partially address these limitations. We argue that the Five Domains model is useful for systematic consideration of all sources of possible welfare compromise and enhancement, but is not, in its current state, fit-for-purpose as an assessment tool. We argue for wider acknowledgment of the operational limits of using the model as an assessment tool, prioritisation of the studies needed for its validation, and encourage improvements to this approach.

How equestrians conceptualise horse welfare: Does it facilitate or hinder change?

More than ever the welfare of horses in equestrian sport is in the spotlight. In response to this scrutiny, one peak body, the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) has created an Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission to protect their sport's longevity. However, for welfare-based strategies to be successful, the conceptualisation of horse welfare must align across various stakeholders, including the general public. The value-laden nature of welfare makes agreement on its definition, even among scientists, difficult. Given little is known about how equestrians conceptualise horse welfare, we interviewed 19 Australian amateur equestrians using a semi-structured format. Systems thinking and the Five Domains Model provided the theoretical framework and informed our methods. Using reflexive thematic analysis, three themes were identified: (1) good horse welfare is tangible; (2) owners misinterpret unwanted horse behaviour; and (3) equestrians publicly minimise horse welfare issues but are privately concerned. Our results highlight participants' conceptualisations of horse welfare do not align with the Five Domains Model; participants' ideal of prioritising horse welfare does not align with their practice; and there is inconsistency between what participants share publicly and what they think privately about horse welfare. These findings can inform the development of programmes to improve ridden horse welfare throughout the horse industry. As a starting point, programmes that provide a safe space for equestrians to explore their private horse welfare concerns, and programmes that build a partnership mindset to facilitate knowledge exchange between all stakeholders are needed.

Tend and Befriend in Horses: Partner Preferences, Lateralization, and Contextualization of Allogrooming in Two Socially Stable Herds of Quarter Horse Mares

Studies show that horses express favoritism through shared proximity and time and demonstrate unique affiliative behaviors such as allogrooming (mutual scratching) with favorite conspecifics. Allogrooming also occurs more frequently during stress and has been observed to occur more frequently in domestic herds than feral. The role of partner preference, lateralization, and duration of allogrooming as measures of social bonding has remained unclear. The present study looked at two socially stable herds of mares (n = 85, n = 115) to determine the frequency, duration, visual field of view and partner preference during allogrooming in both pasture settings (low stress) and confined settings (higher stress). One hundred and fifty-three videos for both herds were coded for allogrooming behaviors with 6.86 h recorded in confined conditions and 31.9 h in pasture settings. Six allogrooming sessions were observed in the pasture setting with an average duration of 163.11 s. In confined settings, a total of 118 allogrooming sessions were observed with an average duration of 40.98 s. Significant (p < 0.01) differences were found between settings for duration (s), number of allogrooming pairs, and frequency of allogrooming (per min) for each herd. All observed allogrooming sessions involved pairs of favored conspecifics (one partner per horse). The current study suggests that horses may have friendships that can be observed through the demonstration of specific affiliative behaviors during times of stress with more frequent, but shorter affiliative interactions with preferred partners during times of stress. This context suggests that horses adhere to the “tend and befriend” principles of friendship in animals.

Is a mounted award ceremony in equestrian sport relevant to animal welfare?

Severe accidents befalling both horses and riders have been observed during award ceremonies in equestrian sports. We hypothesised that such ceremonies and subsequent laps of honour pose a significant risk to the well-being of horses, riders and third parties. Tournament riders' opinions were sought and analysis of accidents undertaken via an online questionnaire completed by 700 tournament riders participating in dressage and showjumping in Germany. While 31.3% of the riders reported feeling tense themselves during award ceremonies, greater tension was reported in the warm-up area and throughout the competition itself. In contrast, 48% of horses were at their most tense at award ceremonies and displayed the greatest amount of stress during the lap of honour. Sixty percent of survey participants felt award ceremonies created an increased risk of injury with riders citing stressed horses as being the principal cause. Only risks associated with the warm-up area were noted by a greater proportion of riders (66.6%). The most frequent cause of accidents at award ceremonies was deemed to be kicks. Horse participation at award ceremonies was deemed to be important for spectators and sponsors and, although over half the riders were in favour of compulsory participation with a horse, they expressed the desire for exceptions to be permissible by judge(s). This study supported the hypothesis that mounted award ceremonies have a negative impact on horse welfare.

Welfare Through Competence: A Framework for Animal-Centric Technology Design

Digital technologies offer new ways to ensure that animals can lead a good life in managed settings. As interactive enrichment and smart environments appear in zoos, farms, shelters, kennels and vet facilities, it is essential that the design of such technologies be guided by clear, scientifically-grounded understandings of what animals need and want, to be successful in improving their wellbeing. The field of Animal-Computer Interaction proposes that this can be achieved by centering animals as stakeholders in technology design, but there remains a need for robust methods to support interdisciplinary teams in placing animals' interests at the heart of design projects. Responding to this gap, we present the Welfare through Competence framework, which is grounded in contemporary animal welfare science, established technology design practices and applied expertise in animal-centered design. The framework brings together the “Five Domains of Animal Welfare” model and the “Coe Individual Competence” model, and provides a structured approach to defining animal-centric objectives and refining them through the course of a design project. In this paper, we demonstrate how design teams can use this framework to promote positive animal welfare in a range of managed settings. These much-needed methodological advances contribute a new theoretical foundation to debates around the possibility of animal-centered design, and offer a practical agenda for creating technologies that support a good life for animals.

Swedish Trotting Horse Trainers’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare Inspections from Public and Private Actors

Simple Summary

Harness racing is the most common form of horse racing in Sweden. As public awareness of animal welfare is increasing, the welfare of these horses must be ensured. Trotting horse trainers in Sweden undergo an official animal welfare inspection by the County Administrative Board (CAB) and a private inspection by their own association, the Swedish Trotting Association (STA). This study investigated trainers’ perceptions of these different inspections using a digital questionnaire sent out during spring 2021. Of the 396 responding trainers, a majority reported quite positive experiences of both CAB and STA inspections. However, most perceived the STA inspections to be more valuable and the STA inspectors to be more competent than the CAB inspectors. Overall, the competence and manner of the inspector had a stronger association with trainers’ perceptions of an inspection than the results of the inspection. While trainers were generally satisfied with the control system, they would like better coordination between the different inspections.

Abstract

In Sweden, the County Administrative Board (CAB) and Swedish Trotting Association (STA) both perform animal welfare inspections of the premises of trotting horse trainers. The CAB inspection checks for compliance with the legislation, and the STA inspection checks for compliance with the private ‘Trotter Health Standard’, which mainly sets the same requirements as the legislation. This study investigated the views of trainers on these inspections both as separate events and in relation to each other. A digital questionnaire was sent out to trotting horse trainers in Sweden during spring 2021, and 396 trainers responded. Descriptive and statistical analyses were used to evaluate the responses. In general, the trainers reported positive experiences of both the CAB and STA inspections, but they had consistently more positive views about the private STA inspections than the official CAB inspections. The outcome of the inspections, i.e., non-compliance or not, did not affect trainers’ perceptions of the inspections, but inspectors’ knowledge, manner, and responsiveness had a strong effect. The trainers were generally satisfied with the current control system but would like better coordination between the different inspections.

Horses' Use of Lying Halls and Time Budget in Relation to Available Lying Area

Sleep is crucial to horses' wellbeing, and their lying time can vary according to such factors as climate, exercise, bedding, and housing. This study aimed to analyze behavior and time spent in lying halls of various sizes. We examined the influence of housing systems on total lying time and behavior, and how changes to available lying area can affect lying time. Two open barns were used in this study, with lying areas of 8, 15, and 18 m²/horse available in the lying halls. The horses' behavior was video recorded and logged using scan sampling and interval observations. Individual boxes were used as a control. The horses were found to spend longer time in sternal and lateral recumbency in the hall with a lying area of 18 m²/horse than the hall with a lying area of 8 m²/horse. Increasing the area of the lying hall also increased overall time spent there. Consequently, the hypothesis that increasing lying area will increase the horses' use of the lying hall, as well as their total lying time, was accepted.

Developing Recommendations for Cumulative Endpoints and Lifetime Use for Research Animals

Research animals are important for scientific advancement, and therefore, their long-term welfare needs to be monitored to not only minimize suffering, but to provide positive affective states and experiences. Currently, there is limited guidance in countries around the world on cumulative and experimental endpoints. This paper aims to explore current opinions and institutional strategies regarding cumulative use and endpoints through a scoping survey and review of current regulations and welfare assessment tools, and ultimately to provide recommendations for assessment of cumulative and lifetime use of research animals. The survey found that only 36% of respondents indicated that their institution had cumulative use endpoint policies in place, but these policies may be informal and/or vary by species. Most respondents supported more specific guidelines but expressed concerns about formal policies that may limit their ability to make case-by-case decisions. The wide diversity in how research animals are used makes it difficult for specific policies to be implemented. Endpoint decisions should be made in an objective manner using standardized welfare assessment tools. Future research should focus on robust, efficient welfare assessment tools that can be used to support planning and recommendations for cumulative endpoints and lifetime use of research and teaching animals.

The Welfare of Animals in Australian Filmed Media

Simple Summary

Animals are frequently featured in film and television in Australia and globally. Monitoring and regulating animal welfare throughout production is therefore imperative for the film industry to maintain its social license to operate. In this commentary, we compare Australia’s state and territory-based legislation and regulation concerning the welfare of animals in filmed media to those in the United States and the United Kingdom and assess the regulations against the Five Domains Model of animal welfare. Historical examples of animal incidents in Australian film are used to illustrate deficiencies in regulation. We identify three themes of welfare concerns including incidents on-set, incidents off-set, and effects of portrayal on perception or ownership of specific species or breeds. A lack of uniform regulation across Australian states and territories is demonstrated, with regulations only partially addressing behavioural interactions or mental state of the animal. This highlights the need for standardised national legislation and improved monitoring and regulation of the welfare of animals in Australian filmed media.

Abstract

Animals play a significant role in the production of film and television in Australia and globally. Given this, regulating and monitoring their welfare on- and off-set is imperative. We therefore aim to compare Australia’s state and territory-based legislation and regulation to those in the United States and the United Kingdom and assess regulations against the Five Domains Model of animal welfare. Historical examples of animal incidents in Australian film are used to illustrate potential deficiencies. We reviewed archived media for animal welfare incidents on and off production sets. We demonstrate a lack of uniformity, with 37.5% (3/8) of states and territories providing targeted Codes of Practice for animals in filmed media, and partially addressing behavioural interactions or mental state within the Five Domains Model. Three themes of welfare concerns were identified including incidents on-set, incidents off-set, and effects of portrayal on perception or ownership of specific species. This highlights the need for standardised national legislation and improved monitoring and regulation. Further research should quantify the number of animals used in productions, describe the type and duration of the work the animals undertake, investigate the frequency of animal welfare incidents, and explore alternative methods to the use of live animals in film and television.

Attitudes of the Equestrian Public towards Equine End-of-Life Decisions

Simple Summary

Delayed death has been identified as a key welfare concern for the U.K. horse population, leading to prolonged suffering. Previous studies have identified common reasons for delaying euthanasia, including financial cost, emotional attachment, peer pressure, negative attitudes towards killing and poor recognition of behavioural indicators of equine pain and stress. The Five Freedoms is a welfare framework that can be used to assess quality of life. We used this framework to create a survey, compiling a list of hypothetical—yet common—scenarios that would have an impact on the overall quality of life of a horse. Participants were asked to indicate to what extent each scenario would have a bearing on an overall decision whether or not to euthanise a horse, or whether it would have had no bearing at all. Participants were also asked if they had had a horse euthanised and to give the reason for such a decision. We received responses from 160 participants and found that the predominant attitude was that most scenarios had no bearing on a decision to euthanise. Principal Component Analysis collected the scenarios into a series of factors that could be labeled according to their themes, the most prominent of which were “Ethology-informed Management”, “Traditional Management”, “Emotional issues” and “Physical Issues”. Participants were most likely to consider euthanasia for physical issues and this was supported by the experiences of participants who had had their horses euthanised. Only a small number of responses also included consideration of affective and/or ethological factors, suggesting that welfare issues concerning affective state and/or behaviour are at risk of being omitted from an end-of-life decision.

Abstract

A key welfare concern for the equine population in the U.K. has been identified as delayed death, leading to prolonged suffering of horses. Reasons why some horse owners fail to have their horses euthanised include financial cost, emotional attachment, peer pressure, negative attitudes towards killing and poor recognition of behavioural indicators of equine pain and stress. The Five Freedoms framework of welfare was used to build a Likert-style survey to investigate the factors underlying attitudes of horse owners towards welfare measures in an end-of-life decision. Participants were asked to respond to hypothetical welfare scenarios and to give details of any horses they had had euthanised. The survey was conducted predominantly via equestrian Facebook groups and obtained 160 participant responses. Reliability of the scale was acceptable, with Cronbach’s α=0.89. Principal Component Analysis was used to load the hypothetical scenarios onto seven factors containing 62.2% of the variance. The first four factors could be categorized according to “Ethology-informed Management”, “Traditional Horse Management”, “Emotional Issues” and “Physical Issues”. Participants were more likely to consider euthanasia for physical issues, compared with issues relating to affective state and/or ethology, although it was not clear whether this was due to disregard for welfare issues relating to mental health or failure to recognise them as such. A large number of responses stated that the scenario had no bearing on whether a horse should be euthanised, again suggesting a lack of recognition of welfare issues and their implications. When asked to state their reasons for euthanising their horses, participants cited almost exclusively physical reasons, with the exception of those citing dangerous behaviour. Only a small number of responses also included consideration of affective and/or ethological factors, suggesting that welfare issues concerning affective state and/or behaviour are at risk of omission from end-of-life decisions.

The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human-Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare

Throughout its 25-year history, the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment has been regularly updated to include at each stage the latest authenticated developments in animal welfare science thinking. The domains of the most up-to-date Model described here are: 1 Nutrition, 2 Physical Environment, 3 Health, 4 Behavioural Interactions and 5 Mental State. The first four domains focus attention on factors that give rise to specific negative or positive subjective experiences (affects), which contribute to the animal's mental state, as evaluated in Domain 5. More specifically, the first three domains focus mainly on factors that disturb or disrupt particular features of the body's internal stability. Each disturbed or disrupted feature generates sensory inputs which are processed by the brain to form specific negative affects, and these affects are associated with behaviours that act to restore the body's internal stability. As each such behaviour is essential for the survival of the animal, the affects associated with them are collectively referred to as "survival-critical affects". In contrast, Domain 4, now named Behavioural Interactions, focusses on evidence of animals consciously seeking specific goals when interacting behaviourally with (1) the environment, (2) other non-human animals and (3) as a new feature of the Model outlined here, humans. The associated affects, evaluated via Domain 5, are mainly generated by brain processing of sensory inputs elicited by external stimuli. The success of the animals' behavioural attempts to achieve their chosen goals is reflected in whether the associated affects are negative or positive. Collectively referred to as "situation-related affects", these outcomes are understood to contribute to animals' perceptions of their external circumstances. These observations reveal a key distinction between the way survival-critical and situation-related affects influence animals' aligned behaviours. The former mainly reflect compelling motivations to engage in genetically embedded behavioural responses, whereas the latter mainly involve conscious behavioural choices which are the hallmarks of agency. Finally, numerous examples of human-animal interactions and their attendant affects are described, and the qualitative grading of interactions that generate negative or positive affect is also illustrated.