1
|
Muhammad M, Stokes JE, Manning L. Positive Aspects of Welfare in Sheep: Current Debates and Future Opportunities. Animals (Basel) 2022; 12:ani12233265. [PMID: 36496786 PMCID: PMC9736654 DOI: 10.3390/ani12233265] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2022] [Revised: 11/15/2022] [Accepted: 11/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
The concept of positive welfare is an expansion of the traditional understanding that animal welfare is defined by minimizing stress, pain, suffering, and disease. Positive welfare shifts the animal welfare narrative from a focus on reducing negative experiences to proactively providing animals with opportunities to have positive experiences and feelings. The concept, although around for several decades, is in its infancy in terms of developing ways of assessing positive welfare on farms, especially in extensive systems, and there are challenges in the adoption of positive welfare practices and the monitoring of continuous improvement at the farm level. Using an iterative approach, this critical review aims to explore the extent to which positive welfare interventions and indicators are positioned and have been developed within the animal welfare literature for sheep. This paper critiques existing positive welfare indicators, such as choices in food and the physical environment, conspecific social synchronization, maternal bonds, intergenerational knowledge transfer, positive human-animal relationships, etc., as currently assessed by the 'good life framework'. It also reviews the characteristics of scientific measures for (positive) affective states in the current sheep literature and their potential contribution to understanding positive welfare states in sheep. In conclusion, this paper provides recommendations for future research regarding sheep welfare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mukhtar Muhammad
- Department of Agriculture Food and Environment, Royal Agricultural University, Cirencester GL7 6JS, UK
| | - Jessica E. Stokes
- Department of Agriculture Food and Environment, Royal Agricultural University, Cirencester GL7 6JS, UK
| | - Louise Manning
- Lincoln Institute for Agri-Food Technology, University of Lincoln, Riseholme Park, Lincoln LN2 2LG, UK
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Positive Welfare Indicators in Dairy Animals. DAIRY 2022. [DOI: 10.3390/dairy3040056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Nowadays, there is growing interest in positive animal welfare not only from the view of scientists but also from that of society. The consumer demands more sustainable livestock production, and animal welfare is an essential part of sustainability, so there is interest in incorporating positive welfare indicators into welfare assessment schemes and legislation. The aim of this review is to cite all the positive welfare indicators that have been proposed for dairy animals in theory or practice. In total, twenty-four indicators were retrieved. The most promising are exploration, access to pasture, comfort and resting, feeding, and behavioral synchronicity. Qualitative behavioral assessment (QBA), social affiliative behaviors, play, maternal care, ear postures, vocalizations, visible eye white, nasal temperature, anticipation, cognitive bias, laterality, and oxytocin have been also studied in dairy ruminants. QBA is the indicator that is most often used for the on-farm welfare assessment. Among all dairy animals, studies have been performed mostly on cattle, followed by sheep and goats, and finally buffaloes. The research on camel welfare is limited. Therefore, there is a need for further research and official assessment protocols for buffaloes and especially camels.
Collapse
|
3
|
Kremer L, Bus JD, Webb LE, Bokkers EAM, Engel B, van der Werf JTN, Schnabel SK, van Reenen CG. Housing and personality effects on judgement and attention biases in dairy cows. Sci Rep 2021; 11:22984. [PMID: 34836990 PMCID: PMC8626508 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-01843-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2021] [Accepted: 11/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Affective states can be inferred from responses to ambiguous and threatening stimuli, using Judgement Bias Tasks (JBTs) and Attention Bias Tasks (ABTs). We investigated the separate and interactive effects of personality and housing conditions on dairy cattle affective states. We assessed personality in 48 heifers using Open-Field, Novel-Object and Runway tests. Personality effects on responses to the JBT and to the ABT were examined when heifers were housed under reference conditions. Heifers were subsequently housed under positive or negative conditions, and housing effects on animal responses in both tasks were investigated while controlling for personality. A Principal Component Analysis revealed three personality traits labelled Activity, Fearfulness and Sociability. Under reference conditions, personality influenced heifers' responses to the JBT and to the ABT, therefore questioning the tasks' generalizability across individuals. Against expectations, housing did not influence responses to the JBT and heifers in the negative conditions looked at the threat later than heifers in the positive or reference conditions. More research is warranted to confirm the validity and the repeatability of the JBT and of the ABT as appropriate measures of affective states in dairy cows.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise Kremer
- Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. .,Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
| | - Jacinta D. Bus
- grid.4818.50000 0001 0791 5666Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
| | - Laura E. Webb
- grid.4818.50000 0001 0791 5666Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
| | - Eddie A. M. Bokkers
- grid.4818.50000 0001 0791 5666Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
| | - Bas Engel
- grid.4818.50000 0001 0791 5666Biometris, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 16, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
| | - Jozef T. N. van der Werf
- grid.4818.50000 0001 0791 5666Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine K. Schnabel
- grid.4818.50000 0001 0791 5666Biometris, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 16, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
| | - Cornelis G. van Reenen
- grid.4818.50000 0001 0791 5666Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands ,grid.4818.50000 0001 0791 5666Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|