1
|
Brunt MW, Haley DB, LeBlanc SJ, Kelton DF. Attitudes and professional values of veterinarians and veterinary students towards positive welfare states for dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 2024:S0022-0302(24)00799-9. [PMID: 38762112 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2023-24394] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2023] [Accepted: 03/30/2024] [Indexed: 05/20/2024]
Abstract
Research that involves agricultural animal welfare has typically aimed to improve welfare by decreasing disease, distress, and pain. Positive welfare does not necessarily occur with the absence of suffering but in combination with opportunities for behaviors or affective states desired by animals. Our objectives were to describe Canadian bovine veterinarians' and veterinary students' attitudes, professional normative values, and perceived ability to promote positive welfare for dairy cows, and to explore participants' provided rationale. With an online cross-sectional survey, Canadian veterinary practitioners (n = 78) and veterinary students (n = 148) were asked, on a 7-point Likert scale, about their attitudes, perceived professional normative values, and perceived ability of veterinarians to promote positive welfare for dairy cows. We used an applied thematic analysis approach within the qualitative description methodology to analyze participants' open-ended text responses. Quantitatively, participants had very favorable attitudes (mean ± SE; 6.3 ± 0.04) and perceived favorable values (5.7 ± 0.06) in the veterinary community toward positive welfare opportunities for dairy cows. Three themes were identified to explain the professional normative values: influences from within the veterinary profession, influences from outside the veterinary profession, and personal views of participants. Participants were confident that veterinarians could suggest positive welfare opportunities for dairy cows (6.1 ± 0.06) but were uncertain that the decision to suggest these opportunities to producers was within a veterinarian's control (4.3 ± 0.11) and were not confident that implementation of positive welfare opportunities was under a veterinarian's control (2.1 ± 0.07). Three themes were identified to explain the barriers to veterinarians promoting positive welfare opportunities for dairy cows: not practical to implement, resistance to change, and concern for the animal. Participants stated that many positive welfare opportunities were impractical or expensive to implement. We conclude that positive attitudes and positive professional values exist in the veterinary community toward positive welfare for dairy cows but that much uncertainty exists regarding a veterinarian's ability to influence change to current practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M W Brunt
- Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada; Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada; Dairy at Guelph, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.
| | - D B Haley
- Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada; Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada; Dairy at Guelph, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
| | - S J LeBlanc
- Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada; Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada; Dairy at Guelph, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
| | - D F Kelton
- Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada; Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada; Dairy at Guelph, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Colditz IG, Campbell DLM, Ingham AB, Lee C. Review: Environmental enrichment builds functional capacity and improves resilience as an aspect of positive welfare in production animals. Animal 2024; 18:101173. [PMID: 38761442 DOI: 10.1016/j.animal.2024.101173] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2023] [Revised: 04/15/2024] [Accepted: 04/18/2024] [Indexed: 05/20/2024] Open
Abstract
The success of the animal in coping with challenges, and in harnessing opportunities to thrive, is central to its welfare. Functional capacity describes the capacity of molecules, cells, organs, body systems, the whole animal, and its community to buffer against the impacts of environmental perturbations. This buffering capacity determines the ability of the animal to maintain or regain functions in the face of environmental perturbations, which is recognised as resilience. The accuracy of physiological regulation and the maintenance of homeostatic balance underwrite the dynamic stability of outcomes such as biorhythms, feed intake, growth, milk yield, and egg production justifying their assessment as indicators of resilience. This narrative review examines the influence of environmental enrichments, especially during developmental stages in young animals, in building functional capacity and in its subsequent expression as resilience. Experience of enriched environments can build skills and competencies across multiple functional domains including but not limited to behaviour, immunity, and metabolism thereby increasing functional capacity and facilitating resilience within the context of challenges such as husbandry practices, social change, and infection. A quantitative method for measuring the distributed property of functional capacity may improve its assessment. Methods for analysing embedded energy (emergy) in ecosystems may have utility for this goal. We suggest functional capacity provides the common thread that links environmental enrichments with an ability to express resilience and may provide a novel and useful framework for measuring and reporting resilience. We conclude that the development of functional capacity and its subsequent expression as resilience is an aspect of positive animal welfare. The emergence of resilience from system dynamics highlights a need to shift from the study of physical and mental states to the study of physical and mental dynamics to describe the positive dimension of animal welfare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- I G Colditz
- Agriculture and Food, CSIRO, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia.
| | - D L M Campbell
- Agriculture and Food, CSIRO, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia
| | - A B Ingham
- Agriculture and Food, CSIRO, St. Lucia, QLD 4067, Australia
| | - C Lee
- Agriculture and Food, CSIRO, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Paterson EA, O’Malley CI, Abney DM, Archibald WJ, Turner PV. Development of a novel primate welfare assessment tool for research macaques. Anim Welf 2024; 33:e3. [PMID: 38487785 PMCID: PMC10936341 DOI: 10.1017/awf.2024.3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2023] [Revised: 12/08/2023] [Accepted: 12/11/2023] [Indexed: 03/17/2024]
Abstract
Primates are important species for biomedical research and ensuring their good welfare is critical for research translatability and ethical responsibility. Systematic animal welfare assessments can support continuous programme improvements and build institutional awareness of areas requiring more attention. A multi-facility, collaborative project aimed to develop and implement a novel primate welfare assessment tool (PWAT) for use with research macaques. PWAT development involved: establishing an internal focus group of primate subject matter experts, identifying animal welfare categories and descriptors based on literature review, developing a preliminary tool, beta-testing the tool to ensure practicality and final consensus on descriptors, finalising the tool in a database with semi-automated data analysis, and delivering the tool to 13 sites across four countries. The tool uses input- and outcome-based measures from six categories: physical, behavioural, training, environmental, procedural, and culture of care. The final tool has 133 descriptors weighted based upon welfare impact, and is split into three forms for ease of use (room level, site level, and personnel interviews). The PWAT was trialled across facilities in March and September 2022 for benchmarking current macaque behavioural management programmes. The tool successfully distinguished strengths and challenges at the facility level and across sites. Following this benchmarking, the tool is being applied semi-annually to assess and monitor progress in behavioural management programmes. The development process of the PWAT demonstrates that evidence-based assessment tools can be developed through collaboration and consensus building, which are important for uptake and applicability, and ultimately for promoting global improvements in research macaque welfare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie A Paterson
- Dept of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
| | - Carly I O’Malley
- Global Animal Welfare & Training, Charles River, Wilmington, MA, 01887, USA
| | | | | | - Patricia V Turner
- Dept of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
- Global Animal Welfare & Training, Charles River, Wilmington, MA, 01887, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Brunt MW, Haley DB, LeBlanc SJ, Kelton DF. Perceived role of the veterinarian in promoting dairy cattle welfare. Front Vet Sci 2023; 10:1325087. [PMID: 38164396 PMCID: PMC10757964 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1325087] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2023] [Accepted: 12/04/2023] [Indexed: 01/03/2024] Open
Abstract
Improving the lives of animals in agricultural systems has primarily focused on minimizing negative experiences. Research is needed on the promotion of positive experiences (pleasure, enjoyment, play, choice, happiness) for animals and the role of veterinarians in their promotion. Our aims were to describe how Canadian bovine veterinarians and veterinary students perceive the role of a veterinarian in positive vs. negative experiences for dairy cows and to analyze the rationale provided to explain their answers. Canadian veterinary practitioners (n = 78) and veterinary students (n = 148) responded to an online cross-sectional survey and were asked, on a 7-point scale, how important the role of a veterinarian is to promote practices that influence the experience of dairy cows. We used qualitative description to analyse participants' open-ended text responses. Practices to minimize negative experiences were most important (mean ± SE; 6.8 ± 0.03), a balance of positive and negative experiences was less important (6.4 ± 0.05), and encouragement of positive experiences scored lowest (6.0 ± 0.06), although all scored highly. Four themes were identified to explain participants' reasoning regarding their perceived role of a veterinarian in the promotion of dairy cattle welfare, centered on: the animal, the producer, the veterinarian, and society. Participants indicated that promoting positive experiences was less important than decreasing negative experiences (5.9 ± 0.09). There were four themes identified to explain participants' reasoning regarding the relative importance of promotion of positive experiences versus decreasing negative experiences which centered on: frameworks to compare positive and negative experiences, impacts on the animal, the participant's view of their role, and the practicality of implementation. These results indicate modest differences in valuing avoidance of negative vs. promotion of positive welfare. There were no differences in the quantitative analyses between veterinarians and veterinary students. We conclude that veterinarians are favorably disposed to positive aspects of welfare for dairy cows but may be more focussed on avoidance of negative aspects of welfare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael W. Brunt
- Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
- Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
- Dairy at Guelph, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
| | - Derek B. Haley
- Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
- Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
- Dairy at Guelph, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
| | - Stephen J. LeBlanc
- Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
- Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
- Dairy at Guelph, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
| | - David F. Kelton
- Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
- Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
- Dairy at Guelph, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Turner PV, Bayne K. Research Animal Behavioral Management Programs for the 21st Century. Animals (Basel) 2023; 13:1919. [PMID: 37370429 DOI: 10.3390/ani13121919] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2023] [Revised: 05/26/2023] [Accepted: 06/05/2023] [Indexed: 06/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Behavioral management programs have been developed commonly for research dogs and primates but rarely has program consideration been expanded to include all research species worked with. This is necessary to reduce animal stress and promote natural behaviors, which can promote good animal welfare and result in more robust and reproducible scientific data. We describe the evolution of consideration for research animal needs and define an umbrella-based model of research animal behavioral management programs, which may be used for all research species. In addition to developing a more comprehensive program, we emphasize the need for regular welfare assessments to determine whether the program is working cohesively and whether any aspects require modification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patricia V Turner
- Global Animal Welfare & Training, Charles River, Wilmington, MA 01887, USA
- Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Improving Animal Wellbeing Using Behavior-Based Methodologies: A Discussion on Enrichment and Bears under Human Care. JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGICAL AND BOTANICAL GARDENS 2023. [DOI: 10.3390/jzbg4010022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/14/2023] Open
Abstract
This communication discusses the Bear Care Group’s “behavior-based” enrichment philosophy, focusing on the importance of enrichment programs built on the knowledge of species’ natural histories, living strategies, and observed daily and seasonal routines. Methods for program development are discussed, detailing the benefits to animal wellbeing, including the reduction of chronic stress and frustration that lead to abnormal or stereotypical behaviors. The concepts are illustrated through a discussion of bear natural history and living strategies, but these methods are applicable to a wide range of taxa. The Bear Care Group encourages facilities to consider behavior-based enrichment programs to promote positive welfare for their animals.
Collapse
|
7
|
Wilkinson LM, O'Malley CI, Moreau E, Bryant T, Hutchinson B, Turner PV. Using Stakeholder Focus Groups to Refine the Care of Pigs Used in Research. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR LABORATORY ANIMAL SCIENCE : JAALAS 2023; 62:123-130. [PMID: 36854450 PMCID: PMC10078923 DOI: 10.30802/aalas-jaalas-22-000089] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2022] [Revised: 11/10/2022] [Accepted: 12/27/2022] [Indexed: 03/02/2023]
Abstract
Research organizations should be proactive in regularly evaluating and refining their animal care and use programs in order to advance animal welfare and minimize distress. Pigs are often used in research, but few empirical studies have examined optimal husbandry and research use practices for pigs in a research environment. We developed the Pig Welfare Working Group (PWWG) to address the need for more formal guidelines on the management and use of pigs in research. The PWWG was a stakeholder focus group whose goal was to identify challenges and opportunities relevant to improving animal welfare through collaboration, knowledge sharing, and inclusive decision-making. Through consensus building, the PWWG developed 12 recommendations for behavioral management, housing, research procedures, transportation, and rehoming programs. The recommendations were rolled out across the contract research organization, business units, sites, and countries. Follow up will be conducted regularly to assess welfare, monitor progress toward implementing the recommendations, and recognize and reward participants making changes at their site.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lois M Wilkinson
- Global Animal Welfare and Training, Charles River, Wilmington, Massachusetts
| | - Carly I O'Malley
- Global Animal Welfare and Training, Charles River, Wilmington, Massachusetts
| | - Erik Moreau
- Global Animal Welfare and Training, Charles River, Wilmington, Massachusetts
| | - Timothy Bryant
- Ocular and Neuroscience, Charles River, Senneville, Quebec, Canada
| | | | - Patricia V Turner
- Global Animal Welfare and Training, Charles River, Wilmington, Massachusetts; Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada;,
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Browning H. Improving welfare assessment in aquaculture. Front Vet Sci 2023; 10:1060720. [PMID: 36925609 PMCID: PMC10011621 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1060720] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2022] [Accepted: 02/09/2023] [Indexed: 03/08/2023] Open
Abstract
While global aquaculture is rapidly expanding, there remains little attention given to the assessment of animal welfare within aquacultural systems. It is crucial that animal welfare concerns are central in the development and implementation of aquaculture as if they are not prioritized early on, it becomes much more difficult to adapt in future. To this end, it is important to ensure the availability of high-quality welfare assessment schemes to evaluate the welfare of animals in aquaculture and promote and maintain high welfare standards. This paper will first discuss some of the current certification and assessment frameworks, highlighting the primary limitations that need to be addressed, before going on to describe the recommendations for a best-practice welfare assessment process for aquaculture; with the hope that these considerations can be taken on board and used to help improve welfare assessment for aquaculture and, ultimately, to ensure animals used in aquaculture have a higher level of welfare. Any aquacultural system should be assessed according to a suitable framework in order to be considered adequate for the welfare of the animals it contains, and thus to maintain social license to operate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heather Browning
- Center for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Philosophy, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
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: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 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
|
10
|
Domínguez-Oliva A, Mota-Rojas D, Hernández-Avalos I, Mora-Medina P, Olmos-Hernández A, Verduzco-Mendoza A, Casas-Alvarado A, Whittaker AL. The neurobiology of pain and facial movements in rodents: Clinical applications and current research. Front Vet Sci 2022; 9:1016720. [PMID: 36246319 PMCID: PMC9556725 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1016720] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2022] [Accepted: 09/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
One of the most controversial aspects of the use of animals in science is the production of pain. Pain is a central ethical concern. The activation of neural pathways involved in the pain response has physiological, endocrine, and behavioral consequences, that can affect both the health and welfare of the animals, as well as the validity of research. The strategy to prevent these consequences requires understanding of the nociception process, pain itself, and how assessment can be performed using validated, non-invasive methods. The study of facial expressions related to pain has undergone considerable study with the finding that certain movements of the facial muscles (called facial action units) are associated with the presence and intensity of pain. This review, focused on rodents, discusses the neurobiology of facial expressions, clinical applications, and current research designed to better understand pain and the nociceptive pathway as a strategy for implementing refinement in biomedical research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adriana Domínguez-Oliva
- Master in Science Program “Maestría en Ciencias Agropecuarias”, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Daniel Mota-Rojas
- Neurophysiology, Behavior and Animal Welfare Assesment, DPAA, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico City, Mexico
- *Correspondence: Daniel Mota-Rojas
| | - Ismael Hernández-Avalos
- Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlán, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Cuautitlán Izcalli, Mexico
| | - Patricia Mora-Medina
- Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlán, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Cuautitlán Izcalli, Mexico
| | - Adriana Olmos-Hernández
- Division of Biotechnology-Bioterio and Experimental Surgery, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Antonio Verduzco-Mendoza
- Division of Biotechnology-Bioterio and Experimental Surgery, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Alejandro Casas-Alvarado
- Neurophysiology, Behavior and Animal Welfare Assesment, DPAA, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Alexandra L. Whittaker
- School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Vigors B, Sandøe P, Lawrence AB. Positive Welfare in Science and Society: Differences, Similarities and Synergies. FRONTIERS IN ANIMAL SCIENCE 2021. [DOI: 10.3389/fanim.2021.738193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Societal and scientific perspectives of animal welfare have an interconnected history. However, they have also, somewhat, evolved separately with scientific perspectives often focusing on specific aspects or indicators of animal welfare and societal perspectives typically taking a broader and more ethically oriented view of welfare. In this conceptual paper, we examine the similarities and differences between scientific and societal perspectives of positive welfare and examine what they may mean for future discussions of animal welfare considered as a whole. Reviewing published studies in the field we find that (UK and Republic of Ireland) farmers and (UK) members of the public (i.e., society) typically consider both negatives (i.e., minimising harms) and positives (i.e., promoting positive experiences) within the envelope of positive welfare and prioritise welfare needs according to the specific context or situation an animal is in. However, little consideration of a whole life perspective (e.g., the balance of positive and negative experiences across an animal's lifetime) is evident in these societal perspectives. We highlight how addressing these disparities, by simultaneously considering scientific and societal perspectives of positive welfare, provides an opportunity to more fully incorporate positive welfare within a comprehensive understanding of animal welfare. We suggest that a consideration of both scientific and societal perspectives points to an approach to welfare which accounts for both positive and negative experiences, prioritises them (e.g., by seeing positive experiences as dependent on basic animal needs being fulfilled), and considers the balance of positives and negatives over the lifetime of the animals. We expand on this view and conclude with its potential implications for future development of how to understand and assess animal welfare.
Collapse
|
12
|
Nunamaker EA, Davis S, O’Malley CI, Turner PV. Developing Recommendations for Cumulative Endpoints and Lifetime Use for Research Animals. Animals (Basel) 2021; 11:ani11072031. [PMID: 34359161 PMCID: PMC8300189 DOI: 10.3390/ani11072031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2021] [Revised: 06/15/2021] [Accepted: 07/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth A. Nunamaker
- Animal Care Services, University of Florida, 1600 Archer Rd, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA;
| | - Shawn Davis
- Animal Care Services, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St Catherines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada;
| | - Carly I. O’Malley
- Global Animal Welfare and Training, Charles River Laboratories, Wilmington, MA 01887, USA
| | - Patricia V. Turner
- Global Animal Welfare and Training, Charles River Laboratories, Wilmington, MA 01887, USA
- Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|