Integrating practical, regulatory and ethical strategies for enhancing farm animal welfare

Introducing the Mellorater-The Five Domains Model in a Welfare Monitoring App for Animal Guardians

When monitoring an animal's welfare, it helps to have comprehensive and day-to-day information about the animal's life. The goal is to ensure that animal guardians (carers, keepers, and owners) use such information to act in the animals' best interests. This article introduces the Mellorater, an animal welfare monitoring app based on the 2020 Five Domains Model. This framework provides a means of capturing comprehensive information about the world in which individual animals exist. The Mellorater asks animal guardians to rate their agreement with 18 statements covering any focal animal's nutrition, environment, health, and behavioural interactions using a five-point Likert scale. No specialist training is required other than following straightforward instructions on using the app, which are provided. The Mellorater is not proposed as a validated welfare auditing tool because it relies on reflective self-reporting and, thus, is vulnerable to the user's subjectivity. If users' subjectivity is stable over time, then the longitudinal data may be considered useful proxies for trends in quality of life. That said, it has the potential to be used by trained auditors if scientifically validated, species-specific indicators are applied. The Mellorater collects anonymous data and has been approved for a study to explore how the use of such scales may differ among guardians of different species and in different contexts. In this paper, we conduct the following: (1) summarise the app's purposes; (2) clarify its capabilities and limitations; and (3) invite animal welfare scholars, veterinarians, health and welfare professionals, and animal guardians to use it.

Perceptions of Animal Welfare on Livestock: Evidence from College Agronomy Students in Costa Rica

Ethical considerations regarding our treatment of animals have gained strength, leading to legislation and a societal focus across various disciplines. This is a subject of study within curricula related to agri-food sciences. The aim was to determine the perceptions of agronomy university students concerning animal welfare in livestock production systems. A survey was conducted to encompass various aspects, from participants' sociodemographic attributes to their attitudes and behaviors regarding animal welfare and the consumption of animal products. Statistical analysis, performed using R software, delved into the associations between participants' characteristics and their perspectives on the ethical, bioethical, and legal dimensions of animal welfare. Associations between demographic factors and ethical viewpoints among students were identified. Gender differences emerged in animal treatment perceptions, while rural and urban environments impacted perspectives on various animals. Bioethical considerations revealed distinctive disparities based on gender and education in concerns regarding animal welfare, value perceptions, evaluations of animal behaviors, and opinions on animal research. It is crucial to distinguish between animal welfare and the ethical considerations arising from coexisting with sentient beings capable of experiencing suffering. Ethical theories provide a lens through which we perceive our obligations toward animals. The responsibility to ensure animal welfare is firmly rooted in recognizing that animals, like humans, experience pain and physical suffering. Consequently, actions causing unjustified suffering or mistreatment, particularly for entertainment purposes, are considered morally unacceptable.

Welfare Implications for Tigers in Travelling Circuses

There are very few studies that have focused on species-specific welfare implications for tigers in a travelling circus. The absence of scientific evidence to inform nationwide legislation means that tigers are still commonly used in travelling circuses across the world. A systematic review of relevant published studies was conducted using the bibliographic databases Web of Science and Scopus, supplemented by a narrative search. In total, 42 relevant studies were identified that assessed the welfare of tigers in captivity, including circuses and zoos. Only eight papers assessed the welfare implications for tigers in circuses directly, evidencing the lack of research in this area. Given that circuses provide a sub-optimal environment compared to zoos, implications for tiger welfare were also inferred from zoo research, within the Five Domains framework. Collectively, these papers infer that the travelling nature of a circus often negatively impacts the welfare domains of nutrition, physical environment, health, and mental state. This is due to limitations in enclosure size, as well as in both environmental and behavioural enrichment. There is also often difficulty in sourcing appropriate food and specialised routine veterinary care. The literature is divided concerning behavioural interactions, specifically whether training can improve welfare by offering mental stimulation. However, circus performances are often associated with negative welfare due to noise disruption from spectators. The collective scientific evidence indicates that tigers are not well suited to circus living, due to the inability of a travelling circus to provide for their species-specific psychological, physiological, and behavioural needs.

Mission impossible accomplished? A European cross-national comparative study on the integration of the harm-benefit analysis into law and policy documents

The harm-benefit analysis (HBA) is a cornerstone of the European Directive 2010/63/EU (the Directive). The Directive regulates the care and handling of animals used for scientific purposes in the European Union (EU). Since its implementation, there has been ongoing debate around the practical applicability of the HBA for research project review processes. The objectives of this study are to analyze the operationalization of HBA in EU member states and investigate the consistency of HBA's implementation in terms of national legislation and available policy documents. To meet these objectives, we evaluated the transposition of the HBA requirement into national legislation. We also conducted a comprehensive comparative cross-national analysis of all guidance documents pertinent to HBA. The results of our study show that there are (1) deficits in the transposition of the HBA requirement into national laws, (2) significant discrepancies in available policy documents relating to HBA, and (3) insufficiently consistent implementations of HBA in European countries.

A Nationwide Survey of Animal Science Students' Perceptions of Animal Welfare across Different Animal Categories at Institutions in the United States

Animal welfare is an increasingly important topic across multiple academic disciplines; however, few studies have investigated student perceptions of animal welfare outside of veterinary medicine. The objective of the study was to evaluate animal science students’ perceptions of animal welfare to determine if perceptions differ across animal categories. An online survey was distributed to animal science programs at institutions across the United States. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on 624 responses. Almost all respondents agreed welfare was important for all animal categories (≥97%). The survey asked respondents to rate the level of importance of 12 welfare parameters and there was evidence that the level of importance differed by animal category (p < 0.0001), e.g., fewer respondents indicated having positive interactions with humans was important for agricultural animals. In a subset of questions about agricultural animals, fewer respondents agreed that swine (325, 52.1%) and poultry (268, 43.0%) are raised with an appropriate level of welfare compared to dairy (425, 68.1%) and beef cattle (421, 67.5%). Four free-response questions asked respondents to report their general perceptions of welfare. Thematic analysis identified multiple themes, such as basic needs and human interaction, with most responses (75%) including two or more themes.

Comparison of Genetic Merit for Weight and Meat Traits between the Polled and Horned Cattle in Multiple Beef Breeds

Breeding for polled animals is deemed the most practical solution to eradicate horns naturally and circumvent management costs and risks on health and welfare. However, there has been a historical reluctance by some farmers to select polled animals due to perceived lower productivity of their calves. This study has compared estimated breeding values (EBVs) between horned and polled animals (N = 2,466,785) for 12 production and carcass traits to assess historical (before 2000) and recent (2000-2018) genetic implications of poll breeding. Older generations of the polled animals in most breeds had significantly lower (Bonferroni-corrected p = 0.05) genetic merits for live (birth to maturity) and carcass weights, milk, meat quality, and fat content traits. Substantial gains of genetic potential were achieved during 2000 to 2018 in each breed, such that polled animals have significantly improved for the majority of traits studied. Generally, polled cohorts showed advantageous EBVs for live and carcass weights irrespective of the lower birth weights in some breeds. While Polled Brahman showed inferior production parameters, the poll genetics' effect size (d) and correlation (r) were very small on recent birth weight (d = -0.30, r = -0.08), 200 days (-0.19, -0.05), 400 days (-0.06, -0.02), 600 days (-0.05, -0.01), mature cow live weight (-0.08, -0.02), and carcass weight (-0.19, -0.05). In conclusion, although there is some evidence that historical selection for polled breeding animals may have reduced productivity, there is strong evidence that more recent selection for polled genotypes in the breeds studied has not resulted in any adverse effects on genetic merit.

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.

The Role of Innate Immune Response and Microbiome in Resilience of Dairy Cattle to Disease: The Mastitis Model

Animal health is affected by many factors such as metabolic stress, the immune system, and epidemiological features that interconnect. The immune system has evolved along with the phylogenetic evolution as a highly refined sensing and response system, poised to react against diverse infectious and non-infectious stressors for better survival and adaptation. It is now known that high genetic merit for milk yield is correlated with a defective control of the inflammatory response, underlying the occurrence of several production diseases. This is evident in the mastitis model where high-yielding dairy cows show high disease prevalence of the mammary gland with reduced effectiveness of the innate immune system and poor control over the inflammatory response to microbial agents. There is growing evidence of epigenetic effects on innate immunity genes underlying the response to common microbial agents. The aforementioned agents, along with other non-infectious stressors, can give rise to abnormal activation of the innate immune system, underlying serious disease conditions, and affecting milk yield. Furthermore, the microbiome also plays a role in shaping immune functions and disease resistance as a whole. Accordingly, proper modulation of the microbiome can be pivotal to successful disease control strategies. These strategies can benefit from a fundamental re-appraisal of native cattle breeds as models of disease resistance based on successful coping of both infectious and non-infectious stressors.

Forensic Use of the Five Domains Model for Assessing Suffering in Cases of Animal Cruelty

Simple Summary

Courts hearing cases about alleged ill-treatment of animals frequently utilise expert opinions which evaluate the nature and seriousness of reported negative welfare impacts. For several decades the Courts have required statements about such impacts to be supported mainly by physical and/or clinical evidence, usually regarding commentary about animals’ subjective experiences as being scientifically unsupported anthropomorphic speculation. This approach is well aligned with a view of animal welfare developed in the 1980s which emphasised scientifically validated features of “biological functioning” and, at an extreme, rejected any reference to subjective experiences that animals might have. However, subjective experiences, which include emotions, feelings, moods, and motivations, technically known as affects or affective states, became an increasing focus for animal behaviour scientists from the 1990s. This is now known as the “affective state” conceptual framework and it has been strengthened during the last two decades by integrating the findings of animal behaviour scientists and neuroscientists who explored brain processes that generate affective experiences. This provided cogent scientific support both for the existence of specific affects and the use of animals’ behaviour and some physiological responses to identify them. Two outcomes are noteworthy: first, that an animal’s welfare state is now very widely regarded by animal welfare scientists to reflect all of its affects experienced at any particular time, i.e., what the animal is experiencing subjectively; and second, that the extensive scientific understanding of the brain processes underlying affective experiences now convincingly negates spurious accusations of anthropomorphic speculation. These and other matters are considered here. It is concluded that the Courts’ current heavy reliance on physical and/or clinical evidence of ill-treatment should be modified. Instead, Courts should now recognise—as validly based—expert opinions that provide cogent evidence of untoward affective outcomes caused by ill-treatment, supplemented where appropriate by any relevant physical and/or clinical evidence if that is available.

Abstract

Conceptual frameworks for understanding animal welfare scientifically are widely influential. An early “biological functioning” framework still influences expert opinions prepared for Courts hearing animal cruelty cases, despite deficiencies in it being revealed by the later emergence and wide scientific adoption of an “affective state” framework. According to “biological functioning” precepts, indices of negative welfare states should predominantly be physical and/or clinical and any that refer to animals’ supposed subjective experiences, i.e., their “affective states”, should be excluded. However, “affective state” precepts, which have secure affective neuroscience and aligned animal behaviour science foundations, show that behavioural indices may be utilised to credibly identify negative welfare outcomes in terms of negative subjective experiences, or affects. It is noted that the now very wide scientific acceptance of the “affective state” framework is entirely consistent with the current extensive international recognition that animals of welfare significance are “sentient” beings. A long list of negative affects is discussed and each one is described as a prelude to updating the concept of “suffering” or “distress”, often referred to in animal welfare legislation and prosecutions for alleged ill-treatment of animals. The Five Domains Model for assessing and grading animal welfare compromise is then discussed, highlighting that it incorporates a coherent amalgamation of “biological functioning” and “affective state” precepts into its operational features. That is followed by examples of severe-to-very-severe ill-treatment of dogs. These include inescapable psychological and/or physical abuse or mistreatment, excessively restrictive or otherwise detrimental housing or holding conditions, and/or seriously inadequate provision of the necessities of life, in each case drawing attention to specific affects that such ill-treatment generates. It is concluded that experts should frame their opinions in ways that include negative affective outcomes. Moreover, the cogency of such analyses should be drawn to the attention of the Judiciary when they are deliberating on suffering in animals, thereby providing a basis for them to move from a current heavy reliance on physical and/or clinical indices of cruelty or neglect towards including in their decisions careful evaluations of animals’ negative affective experiences.

Future of keeping pet reptiles and amphibians: towards integrating animal welfare, human health and environmental sustainability

The keeping of exotic pets is currently under debate and governments of several countries are increasingly exploring the regulation, or even the banning, of exotic pet keeping. Major concerns are issues of public health and safety, animal welfare and biodiversity conservation. The keeping of reptiles and amphibians in captivity encompasses all the potential issues identified with keeping exotic pets, and many of those relating to traditional domestic pets. Within the context of risks posed by pets in general, the authors argue for the responsible and sustainable keeping of reptile and amphibian pets by private persons, based on scientific evidence and on the authors' own expertise (veterinary medicine, captive husbandry, conservation biology).

Operational Details of the Five Domains Model and Its Key Applications to the Assessment and Management of Animal Welfare

Simple Summary

The Five Domains Model is a focusing device to facilitate systematic, structured, comprehensive and coherent assessment of animal welfare; it is not a definition of animal welfare, nor is it intended to be an accurate representation of body structure and function. The purpose of each of the five domains is to draw attention to areas that are relevant to both animal welfare assessment and management. This paper begins by briefly describing the major features of the Model and the operational interactions between the five domains, and then it details seven interacting applications of the Model. These underlie its utility and increasing application to welfare assessment and management in diverse animal use sectors.

Abstract

In accord with contemporary animal welfare science understanding, the Five Domains Model has a significant focus on subjective experiences, known as affects, which collectively contribute to an animal’s overall welfare state. Operationally, the focus of the Model is on the presence or absence of various internal physical/functional states and external circumstances that give rise to welfare-relevant negative and/or positive mental experiences, i.e., affects. The internal states and external circumstances of animals are evaluated systematically by referring to each of the first four domains of the Model, designated “Nutrition”, “Environment”, “Health” and “Behaviour”. Then affects, considered carefully and cautiously to be generated by factors in these domains, are accumulated into the fifth domain, designated “Mental State”. The scientific foundations of this operational procedure, published in detail elsewhere, are described briefly here, and then seven key ways the Model may be applied to the assessment and management of animal welfare are considered. These applications have the following beneficial objectives—they (1) specify key general foci for animal welfare management; (2) highlight the foundations of specific welfare management objectives; (3) identify previously unrecognised features of poor and good welfare; (4) enable monitoring of responses to specific welfare-focused remedial interventions and/or maintenance activities; (5) facilitate qualitative grading of particular features of welfare compromise and/or enhancement; (6) enable both prospective and retrospective animal welfare assessments to be conducted; and, (7) provide adjunct information to support consideration of quality of life evaluations in the context of end-of-life decisions. However, also noted is the importance of not overstating what utilisation of the Model can achieve.

Moving beyond the "Five Freedoms" by Updating the "Five Provisions" and Introducing Aligned "Animal Welfare Aims"

Simple Summary

A Five Provisions/Welfare Aims paradigm has been formulated as a coherent alternative to the Five Freedoms. It retains the memorable simplicity of the original paradigm and is linked to it, but avoids the acknowledged complications that arise by using the term “freedoms”. Also, it accommodates current scientific understanding of animal welfare, is easily understood and provides guidance on beneficial objectives for animal welfare management. It is an evocative and engaging paradigm anticipated to be of particular interest to non-specialist members of the lay public who are concerned about animal welfare.

Abstract

Although the Five Freedoms paradigm has been very influential in shaping animal welfare thinking for the last two decades, it has two key disadvantages. First, the focus on “freedom” from a range of negative experiences and states has been misunderstood in a number of quarters to mean that complete freedom from these experiences and states is possible, when in fact the best that can be achieved is for them to be minimised. Second, the major focus of the Freedoms on negative experiences and states is now seen to be a disadvantage in view of current understanding that animal welfare management should also include the promotion of positive experiences and states. The challenge therefore was to formulate a paradigm that overcame these two main problems and yet was straightforward enough to be accessible to non-specialists, including members of the lay public who are interested in animal welfare. This was achieved by highlighting the Five Provisions, originally aligned with the Five Freedoms, but now updated to direct welfare management towards activities that both minimise negative experiences or states and promote positive experiences or states as specified by particular Animal Welfare Aims assigned to each Provision. Aspects of the four welfare principles from the European Welfare Quality assessment system (WQ^®) and elements of all domains of the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment have been incorporated into the new Five Provisions/Welfare Aims paradigm. Thus, the paradigm is easily understood and provides clear guidance on beneficial objectives for animal welfare management. It is anticipated that the paradigm will have application to many species found in a wide range of circumstances.

Changes in the Welfare of an Injured Working Farm Dog Assessed Using the Five Domains Model

Simple Summary

The Five Domains Model is now increasingly used to assess the welfare status of a wide range of species in markedly different circumstances. Particular strengths are that the Model facilitates structured, systematic and comprehensive evaluations of animals’ negative and positive mental experiences, the overall balance of which underlies their welfare status or quality of life. Importantly, the Model also clarifies the specific internal and external factors that give rise to those experiences. The welfare evaluation published here is the first to use the most up-to-date version of the Model, and stands as a detailed example that may assist others undertaking such welfare evaluations in other species and contexts. Moreover, it is the first such evaluation of a companion animal. It employs a fictitious scenario involving a working farm dog before, during and after it sustains a serious hind leg injury requiring amputation and its subsequent rehoming as a pet. A wide range of negative and positive experiences are graded, interactions between them are revealed, and the balance between negative and positive states at different stages of the scenario is described. Such Model evaluations can highlight current practices that merit re-evaluation. More generally, when major welfare issues are identified, use of the Model could enhance expert witness participation in related prosecutions by highlighting scientifically supported connections between indicative physical/functional states and behaviours and their associated negative experiences in ill-treated animals. Five Domains Model evaluations can also facilitate quality of life assessments and end-of-life decisions.

Abstract

The present structured, systematic and comprehensive welfare evaluation of an injured working farm dog using the Five Domains Model is of interest in its own right. It is also an example for others wanting to apply the Model to welfare evaluations in different species and contexts. Six stages of a fictitious scenario involving the dog are considered: (1) its on-farm circumstances before one hind leg is injured; (2) its entanglement in barbed wire, cutting it free and transporting it to a veterinary clinic; (3) the initial veterinary examination and overnight stay; (4) amputation of the limb and immediate post-operative recovery; (5) its first four weeks after rehoming to a lifestyle block; and (6) its subsequent life as an amputee and pet. Not all features of the scenario represent average-to-good practice; indeed, some have been selected to indicate poor practice. It is shown how the Model can draw attention to areas of animal welfare concern and, importantly, to how welfare enhancement may be impeded or facilitated. Also illustrated is how the welfare implications of a sequence of events can be traced and evaluated, and, in relation to specific situations, how the degrees of welfare compromise and enhancement may be graded. In addition, the choice of a companion animal, contrasting its welfare status as a working dog and pet, and considering its treatment in a veterinary clinical setting, help to highlight various welfare impacts of some practices. By focussing attention on welfare problems, the Model can guide the implementation of remedies, including ways of promoting positive welfare states. Finally, wider applications of the Five Domains Model are noted: by enabling both negative and positive welfare-relevant experiences to be graded, the Model can be applied to quality of life assessments and end-of-life decisions and, with particular regard to negative experiences, the Model can also help to strengthen expert witness testimony during prosecutions for serious ill treatment of animals.

Behavioral Ecology of Captive Species: Using Bibliographic Information to Assess Pet Suitability of Mammal Species

Which mammal species are suitable to be kept as pet? For answering this question many factors have to be considered. Animals have many adaptations to their natural environment in which they have evolved that may cause adaptation problems and/or risks in captivity. Problems may be visible in behavior, welfare, health, and/or human–animal interaction, resulting, for example, in stereotypies, disease, and fear. A framework is developed in which bibliographic information of mammal species from the wild and captive environment is collected and assessed by three teams of animal scientists. Oneliners from literature about behavioral ecology, health, and welfare and human–animal relationship of 90 mammal species are collected by team 1 in a database and strength of behavioral needs and risks is assessed by team 2. Based on summaries of those strengths the suitability of the mammal species is assessed by team 3. Involvement of stakeholders for supplying bibliographic information and assessments was propagated. Combining the individual and subjective assessments of the scientists using statistical methods makes the final assessment of a rank order of suitability as pet of those species less biased and more objective. The framework is dynamic and produces an initial rank ordered list of the pet suitability of 90 mammal species, methods to add new mammal species to the list or remove animals from the list and a method to incorporate stakeholder assessments. A model is developed that allows for provisional classification of pet suitability. Periodical update of the pet suitability framework is expected to produce an updated list with increased reliability and accuracy. Furthermore, the framework could be further developed to assess the pet suitability of additional species of other animal groups, e.g., birds, reptiles, and amphibians.

Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the "Five Freedoms" towards "A Life Worth Living"

Simple Summary

The Five Freedoms were formulated in the early 1990s and are now well recognised as highly influential in the animal welfare arena. However, a marked increase in scientific understanding over the last two decades now shows that the Five Freedoms do not capture, either in the specifics or the generality of their expression, the breadth and depth of current knowledge of the biological processes that are germane to understanding animal welfare and to guiding its management. For example, this paper refers to some negative experiences that can never be eliminated, merely temporarily neutralised, because they are essential for eliciting behaviours upon which the survival of the animal depends. In addition, it refers to other negative experiences that relate to an animal’s responses to living in poor environments which require improvement, and also to how such experiences may be replaced by positive ones when particular improvements are introduced. For animals to have “lives worth living” it is necessary, overall, to minimise their negative experiences and at the same time to provide the animals with opportunities to have positive experiences. These observations have implications for reviewing and potentially updating minimum standards in codes of welfare. The paper ends with an up-to-date characterisation of the principal features of animal welfare, expressed largely in non-technical terms.

Abstract

The Five Freedoms have had major impact on animal welfare thinking internationally. However, despite clear initial statements that the words ‘freedom from’ should indicate ‘as free as possible from’, the Freedoms have come to be represented as absolute or fundamental freedoms, even rights, by some animal advocate and other groups. Moreover, a marked increase in scientific understanding over the last two decades shows that the Freedoms do not capture the more nuanced knowledge of the biological processes that is germane to understanding animal welfare and which is now available to guide its management. For example, the named negative experiences of thirst, hunger, discomfort and pain, and others identified subsequently, including breathlessness, nausea, dizziness, debility, weakness and sickness, can never be eliminated, merely temporarily neutralised. Each one is a genetically embedded element that motivates animals to behave in particular ways to obtain specific life-sustaining resources, avoid or reduce physical harm or facilitate recovery from infection or injury. Their undoubted negativity creates a necessary sense of urgency to respond, without which animals would not survive. Also, the temporary neutralisation of these survival-critical affects does not in and of itself generate positive experience. This questions the commonly held assumption that good animal welfare will result when these internally generated negative affects are minimised. Animals may also experience other negative affects that include anxiety, fear, panic, frustration, anger, helplessness, loneliness, boredom and depression. These situation-related affects reflect animals’ perceptions of their external circumstances. Although they are elicited by threatening, cramped, barren and/or isolated conditions, they can often be replaced by positive affects when animals are kept with congenial others in spacious, stimulus-rich and safe environments which provide opportunities for them to engage in behaviours they find rewarding. These behaviours may include environment-focused exploration and food acquisition activities as well as animal-to-animal interactive activities, all of which can generate various forms of comfort, pleasure, interest, confidence and a sense of control. Animal welfare management should aim to reduce the intensity of survival-critical negative affects to tolerable levels that nevertheless still elicit the required behaviours, and should also provide opportunities for animals to behave in ways they find rewarding, noting that poor management of survival-critical affects reduces animals’ motivation to utilize such rewarding opportunities. This biologically more accurate understanding provides support for reviewing the adequacy of provisions in current codes of welfare or practice in order to ensure that animals are given greater opportunities to experience positive welfare states. The purpose is to help animals to have lives worth living, which is not possible when the predominant focus of such codes is on survival-critical measures. Finally, an updated characterisation of animal welfare that incorporates this more accurate understanding is presented.

Assessing Animal Welfare Impacts in the Management of European Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), European Moles (Talpa europaea) and Carrion Crows (Corvus corone)

Human-wildlife conflict is a global issue. Attempts to manage this conflict impact upon wild animal welfare, an issue receiving little attention until relatively recently. Where human activities harm animal welfare these effects should be minimised where possible. However, little is known about the welfare impacts of different wildlife management interventions, and opinions on impacts vary widely. Welfare impacts therefore need to be assessed objectively. Our objectives were to: 1) establish whether an existing welfare assessment model could differentiate and rank the impacts of different wildlife management interventions (for decision-making purposes); 2) identify and evaluate any additional benefits of making formal welfare assessments; and 3) illustrate issues raised by application of the model. We applied the welfare assessment model to interventions commonly used with rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), moles (Talpa europaea) and crows (Corvus corone) in the UK. The model ranked interventions for rabbits (least impact first: fencing, head shot, chest shot) and crows (shooting, scaring, live trapping with cervical dislocation). For moles, managing molehills and tunnels scored least impact. Both spring trapping, and live trapping followed by translocation, scored greater impacts, but these could not be compared directly as they scored on different axes of the model. Some rankings appeared counter-intuitive, highlighting the need for objective formal welfare assessments. As well as ranking the humaneness of interventions, the model highlighted future research needs and how Standard Operating Procedures might be improved. The model is a milestone in assessing wildlife management welfare impacts, but our research revealed some limitations of the model and we discuss likely challenges in resolving these. In future, the model might be developed to improve its utility, e.g. by refining the time-scales. It might also be used to reach consensus among stakeholders about relative welfare impacts or to identify ways of improving wildlife management practice in the field.

The First Shared Online Curriculum Resources for Veterinary Undergraduate Learning and Teaching in Animal Welfare and Ethics in Australia and New Zealand

Simple Summary

There is a need for teaching Animal Welfare and Ethics in veterinary schools and we are developing online resources to meet this need. In this paper we describe how we prioritized the development of these resources by polling experts in the field.

Abstract

The need for undergraduate teaching of Animal Welfare and Ethics (AWE) in Australian and New Zealand veterinary courses reflects increasing community concerns and expectations about AWE; global pressures regarding food security and sustainability; the demands of veterinary accreditation; and fears that, unless students encounter AWE as part of their formal education, as veterinarians they will be relatively unaware of the discipline of animal welfare science. To address this need we are developing online resources to ensure Australian and New Zealand veterinary graduates have the knowledge, and the research, communication and critical reasoning skills, to fulfill the AWE role demanded of them by contemporary society. To prioritize development of these resources we assembled leaders in the field of AWE education from the eight veterinary schools in Australia and New Zealand and used modified deliberative polling. This paper describes the role of the poll in developing the first shared online curriculum resource for veterinary undergraduate learning and teaching in AWE in Australia and New Zealand. The learning and teaching strategies that ranked highest in the exercise were: scenario-based learning; a quality of animal life assessment tool; the so-called ‘Human Continuum’ discussion platform; and a negotiated curriculum.

Positive animal welfare states and encouraging environment-focused and animal-to-animal interactive behaviours

Affective neuroscience, incorporating neurophysiology and neuropsychology, is providing increasing evidence that certain behaviours of animals may be interpreted in terms of what they are intending to achieve, i.e. their goals. It is also providing evidence that allows inferences to be made about the affective contents of some goal-directed behaviours. These neuroscience-supported inferences are aligned with recommendations based on prior behaviour-based investigations of animals' preferences, aversions and priorities, and these observations together support the cautious use of particular behaviours to infer what the accompanying affects may be. In this review, therefore, some attention is given to negative affects and their relationships to poor animal welfare, but the primary focus is the positive affects animals may experience when they successfully engage in rewarding goal-directed behaviours, encapsulated in the concept of positive affective engagement. The review draws together reports of environment-focused and animal-to-animal interactive behaviours observed in a range of species and under diverse circumstances in order to illustrate the likely widespread occurrence of the positive affects that may accompany them. Particular consideration is given to affects that are potentially associated with some aspects of exploration and food acquisition in stimulus rich or impoverished environments, and to those that may be associated with aspects of the affiliative interactions of bonding or bond affirmation, maternal care, play and sexual activity. It is concluded that animals given the opportunity to engage in such activities may experience some positive affects. However, the intensity of an animal's experience of particular positive affects is likely to range from zero to very high because the associated behaviours occur intermittently, variation may occur during different phases of a goal-directed behaviour, and other positive or negative affects experienced at the same time may have greater impact. As good welfare is achieved both by minimising negative affects and promoting positive ones and as conscious sentient animals may be expected to have an interest in experiencing as little pain and as much pleasure as possible, it is argued that there is an ethical obligation to take practical steps to help them to achieve these outcomes. Such steps would include providing them with opportunities to express more behaviours that are associated with rewarding or satisfying experiences understood in terms of positive affective engagement.

Positive animal welfare states and reference standards for welfare assessment

Developments in affective neuroscience and behavioural science during the last 10-15 years have together made it increasingly apparent that sentient animals are potentially much more sensitive to their environmental and social circumstances than was previously thought to be the case. It therefore seems likely that both the range and magnitude of welfare trade-offs that occur when animals are managed for human purposes have been underestimated even when minimalistic but arguably well-intentioned attempts have been made to maintain high levels of welfare. In light of these neuroscience-supported behaviour-based insights, the present review considers the extent to which the use of currently available reference standards might draw attention to these previously neglected areas of concern. It is concluded that the natural living orientation cannot provide an all-embracing or definitive welfare benchmark because of its primary focus on behavioural freedom. However assessments of this type, supported by neuroscience insights into behavioural motivation, may now carry greater weight when used to identify management practices that should be avoided, discontinued or substantially modified. Using currently accepted baseline standards as welfare reference points may result in small changes being accorded greater significance than would be the case if they were compared with higher standards, and this could slow the progress towards better levels of welfare. On the other hand, using "what animals want" as a reference standard has the appeal of focusing on the specific resources or conditions the animals would choose themselves and can potentially improve their welfare more quickly than the approach of making small increments above baseline standards. It is concluded that the cautious use of these approaches in different combinations could lead to recommendations that would more effectively promote positive welfare states in hitherto neglected areas of concern.

Policing Farm Animal Welfare in Federated Nations: The Problem of Dual Federalism in Canada and the USA

Simple Summary

In any federation of states, societal oversight of farm animal welfare (agriculture policy arena, prevention) is more difficult to achieve than providing punishment of individuals abusing of companion animals (post injury). The constitutional division of powers and historical policy related to animal agriculture and non-government organization policing cruelty of companion animals may be entrenched. With changing societal expectations of agriculture production, each level of government may hesitate to take the lead, due to financial or ideological beliefs and simultaneously, obstruct the other government level from taking the lead, based on constitutional grounds. The tradition of private policing of companion animal abuse offences may be unworkable in the provision of protection for animals used in industrial production.

Abstract

In recent European animal welfare statutes, human actions injurious to animals are new “offences” articulated as an injury to societal norms in addition to property damage. A crime is foremost a violation of a community moral standard. Violating a societal norm puts society out of balance and justice is served when that balance is returned. Criminal law normally requires the presence of mens rea, or evil intent, a particular state of mind; however, dereliction of duties towards animals (or children) is usually described as being of varying levels of negligence but, rarely can be so egregious that it constitutes criminal societal injury. In instrumental justice, the “public goods” delivered by criminal law are commonly classified as retribution, incapacitation and general deterrence. Prevention is a small, if present, outcome of criminal justice. Quazi-criminal law intends to establish certain expected (moral) standards of human behavior where by statute, the obligations of one party to another are clearly articulated as strict liability. Although largely moral in nature, this class of laws focuses on achieving compliance, thereby resulting in prevention. For example, protecting the environment from degradation is a benefit to society; punishing non-compliance, as is the application of criminal law, will not prevent the injury. This paper will provide evidence that the integrated meat complex of Canada and the USA is not in a good position to make changes to implement a credible farm animal protection system.

Comprehensive assessment of harms caused by experimental, teaching and testing procedures on live animals

The comprehensiveness of assessments of experimental, teaching and testing harms, and the actions taken to minimise them, are measures of the scientist's acceptance of ethical responsibility for all features of each procedure that affect animals adversely. A system, refined from its original 1994 form, has been devised to assist in this process. Five "domains of potential animal welfare compromise" are identified. Domain 1 is Water deprivation, food deprivation, malnutrition; Domain 2 is Environmental challenge; Domain 3 is Disease, injury, functional impairment; Domain 4 is Behavioural, interactive restriction; and Domain 5 is Anxiety, fear, pain, distress, thirst, hunger and boredom. A proposal would be examined systematically in all these domains, and the degree of compromise in each rated on a five-step, non-numerical scale--O, A, B, C, X. Anxiety, fear, pain, distress, thirst, hunger and boredom arising from compromise in Domains 1-4, would be cumulated into Domain 5. The overall rating would commonly be that given to Domain 5, but if this were low or unknown, it would be given to the highest rating in the other domains. Each experimental group in a study would be rated so that compromise overall would neither be underestimated nor overestimated. Both the researcher and the animal ethics committee would rate each group in these terms.

The use of animals for research on animal diseases: its impact on the harm-benefit analysis

The use of animals in scientific experiments is sometimes controversial. Usually, the debate focuses on the advantages or disadvantages of using animals in biomedical research or for testing products for safety or efficacy in humans. This has been the case in the previous World Congresses on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences. Such studies can be subjected to a harm-benefit analysis that attempts to assess the expected benefits of the research to be done in relation to the harm done to the experimental animals. This paper suggests that studies carried out in the target species offer a higher level of fidelity and discrimination (confidence in the proper expression of the disease and greater ability to detect the impacts of any treatments under investigation) than do experiments carried out in animal models of a different species. A number of examples are given to show the benefits that have accrued to the welfare of domesticated animals through research on the diseases from which they suffer. These examples suggest that there will be an ongoing need to use animals in research to develop methods for the control or eradication of newly emergent diseases.

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.

Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 1. Management practices

This review summarises research of management practices that potentially impact on the welfare of farmed deer. The processes of capture and initial domestication of feral deer caused many welfare problems but are now essentially complete in New Zealand. The health and production status of farmed deer, and readily visible indicators of their welfare are generally good, although preventive medicines and optimum management practices have not been universally adopted. Research into social behaviour, effects of yarding, weaning, mating, calving, shelter, shade and nutrition has identified ways of improving the welfare of farmed deer and has provided recommendations for deer industry quality assurance programmes. Research has identified transport design and practices that minimise the impact of transport on deer welfare and reduce carcass wastage caused by bruising during transport. Time in lairage prior to slaughter should be minimised and electrical stunning is a humane method of slaughter. Ongoing research is needed on management practices and farm environments to further improve the welfare of farmed deer, consistent with the goals of the New Zealand deer industry and its proactive approach to date.

Thinking outside our cages

Researchers seem to be stuck reiterating the now-familiar argument that barren boxes are bad for welfare and that rodents are due ethical consideration. But the prerequisites for real progress are new kinds of arguments, new types of data, and removal of very real practical and cultural obstacles to implementation of meaningful enrichment. We must discover what we have to do to effectively change the practices of people who have care and control of rodents in the laboratory, not just husbandry staff but those who develop the institution's protocols, job descriptions, and resourcing. Researchers are inventers of information, and like any inventor we should experience no satisfaction until our ideas are fully implemented-and we must be an active participant in that process. If we are asking animal caretakers to make deep, paradigmatic changes in their thinking, it is imperative that we in turn develop an emotionally positive understanding of areas important to them. For unless the welfare advocates truly understand the issues such as budgets, biosecurity, and branding, why should the people responsible for those subjects listen to us?

Fumigation of rabbit warrens with chloropicrin produces poor welfare outcomes - a review

Chloropicrin (CLPN) is used in Australia and New Zealand as a warren fumigant for the control of exotic European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) but is no longer registered for this purpose in the United States or the European Union. This review summarises the mammalian toxicology and clinical records from 56 accounts where signs, symptoms and pathology have been related to a range of CLPN concentrations. The approach follows a general principle where an assessment of the humaneness of vertebrate pest control techniques should be firstly based upon a thorough synopsis of published behavioural, physiological and pathological impacts. Chloropicrin produces intense irritation by stimulation of trigeminal nerves and brief exposures to concentrations of ≤1 ppm can severely irritate the eyes and cause lacrimation in mammals. Beyond 8 ppm, exposures are reported to be painful and incapacitating in humans. Mammals experience an array of common signs and symptoms including: headache, nausea, diarrhoea, laboured breathing, decrease in spontaneous motor activity, salivation, rhinorrhea, blood stains around the nose and mouth, painful irritation of mucous membranes, profuse lacrimation, audible obstruction of respiration and distress vocalisation. Acute pathological changes from CLPN exposure can cause death in mammals from pulmonary oedema, bronchopneumonia, emphysema or general destructive changes and necrosis of the small and medium bronchi. Overall, the signs, symptoms and pathology arising from CLPN exposure at any airborne concentration beyond 0.3 ppm indicate that it must be assumed to cause suffering in all mammals. Exposure to CLPN that is not acutely lethal may debilitate rabbits and other species and cause a protracted death over hours or days. To produce a humane death a fumigant must be non-irritating, have an initial depressive action on the central nervous system and/or produce a rapid death without protracted distress while having little ability to cause debilitation or chronic injury. Given that CLPN has none of these characteristics, it cannot be considered to be acceptably humane.

Assuring that 1080 toxicosis in the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is humane. II. Analgesic drugs produce better welfare outcomes

Fluoroacetic acid (1080) is a widely used vertebrate pesticide in Australia and New Zealand. In Australia it is used in meat baits as the primary method of control for the introduced red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Subsequent to the onset of initial signs, collapse and convulsions are associated with central nervous system disruptions where the animal is unresponsive to external stimuli, making an assessment of humaneness difficult. Prior to collapse and unconsciousness it would appear that there is potential for suffering to occur although its extent and nature during the entire toxicosis remains unclear. We investigated various formulations of 1080 with either analgesic or anxiolytic drugs in order to manage possible suffering experienced during 1080 poisoning of red foxes. Oral doses of 0.5 mg kg−1 1080 alone produced no visible signs for a mean of 205.3 min (±28 min, P < 0.05), but were lethal after signs that lasted a mean of 103 min (±16 min, P < 0.05). Combinations of 0.5 mg kg−1 1080 with either 10 mg kg−1 carprofen (CA), 0.4 mg kg−1 copper indomethacin (CI) or 10 mg kg−1 buspirone (BS) were assessed in pen trials and compared with a group that received 0.5 mg kg−1 1080 only and one that received the drug dose only. CI reduced the time between the onset of signs and death (P < 0.01) and CA reduced the overall intensity of activity from dosage to death (P < 0.05). A significant reduction in the incidence of retching during the onset of signs was observed in foxes that were coadministered CA (P < 0.05) or CI (P < 0.01) with 1080 compared with 1080 alone. The combination of BS and 1080 halved the mean activity from first signs to death, but was not statistically significant. In a separate trial, drug and 1080 combinations were delivered to penned foxes using an M-44 ejector. Neither 70 mg CA nor 2.8 mg CI appeared to affect the lethality of 1080 doses, although 70 mg BS produced a result that was equivocal and warrants further investigation. Coadministration of 70 mg diazepam was associated with the survival of six of nine foxes and suggests that there may be the potential for diazepam to act in the treatment of accidentally poisoned domestic dogs and this is discussed briefly. Given evidence for both central and peripheral analgesia, its potential to reduce the duration of signs and incidence of retching, CI shows immediate potential to be used with 1080 fox baits and to assist in delivering better welfare outcomes in fox control.

Key issues concerning environmental enrichment for laboratory-held fish species

An improved knowledge and understanding of the fundamental biological requirements is needed for many of the species of fish held in captivity and, without this knowledge it is difficult to determine the optimal conditions for laboratory culture. The aim of this paper is to review the key issues concerning environmental enrichment for laboratory-held fish species and identify where improvements are required. It provides background information on environmental enrichment, describes enrichment techniques currently used in aquatic ecotoxicology studies, identifies potential restrictions in their use and discusses why more detailed and species-specific guidance is needed.

Animal handling as an integrated component of animal and veterinary science programs at the University of Queensland

Students in animal science and veterinary science at the University of Queensland (UQ) have similar introductory courses in animal handling in year 1 of their degree programs. Veterinary students take animal-handling instruction in farm and companion animals, whereas animal science students are instructed in handling farm animals, horses, and rodents. Veterinary students are introduced to rodents, and animal science students to dogs and cats, in subsequent years of the curriculum. Both cohorts receive additional training, with clinical emphasis for veterinary students in years 3, 4, and 5 of their five-year curriculum. The introductory course is well received by students; both student cohorts appreciate the opportunity provided and the effort that goes into the animal-handling classes. Undergraduates realize that acquiring animal-handling skills will increase their proficiency in their subsequent careers; veterinary graduates recognize that their handling prowess will give their clients confidence in their abilities. Most clients cannot judge the competence of a veterinarian's diagnosis or treatment but will judge their ability based on their handling skills. Ongoing practice allows students to become competent in animal handling.

Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvet antler removal

This paper reviews published data on welfare aspects of stag restraint and velvet antler removal, and prevention of antler growth. Several studies of physical restraint and handling demonstrate behavioural and physiological changes both during and after velvet antler removal. Interpretations vary as to whether the act of velvet antler removal imposes a welfare cost additional to that of handling and restraint alone. Chemical restraint presents immediate and delayed welfare risks to the animal. Surgical removal of velvet antler can be achieved without acute pain using a high dose rate of local anaesthetic applied as a ring block, rather than as regional nerve blocks, provided the wait time is adequate. However, there is evidence of less than optimum reproducibility. Lignocaine hydrochloride produces rapid analgesia of short duration, whilst bupivacaine has a delayed onset, but longer duration of analgesia. Mepivacaine has a rapid onset and intermediate duration of analgesia. Mixtures of long and short-acting local anaesthetics provide rapid onset and long duration of analgesia. Present methods for electronic analgesia are aversive and not sufficiently effective. The efficacy and possible aversiveness of compression techniques for inducing analgesia of antlers are currently under evaluation. Post-operative pain and the need for its control have been insufficiently researched. Post-operative sequelae are uncommon, but include clostridial infection. Antler growth in most stags can be prevented by rubber-band application to the growing pedicle, although behavioural changes after ring application suggest this practice may be painful. The procedures used for velvet antler removal, and whether practices are acceptable on the balance of welfare costs and benefits, should be reviewed on an ongoing basis as science, using an increasing range of techniques and measures, provides more data about the welfare implications of this practice.

Animal welfare and ethical issues relevant to the humane control of vertebrate pests

Vertebrate pests and pest control impact on people, animals and the environment, so any ethical consideration of vertebrate pest control must incorporate the interests of all three. The necessity of intervention, whether it involves killing animals or not, must be properly evaluated. Justification for pest control is only tenable if all of the negative impacts (harms) on people, animals and the environment are minimised and all of the positive impacts (benefits) are maximised as far as can be feasibly achieved. In all cases, the most humane control methods possible must be used; we must actively seek ways to improve the humaneness of existing methods and to find new methods that are more humane. There are six major principles that guide the design and execution of ethically sound vertebrate pest control programmes. (1) The aims or benefits and the harms of each control programme must be clear. (2) Control must only be undertaken if the aims can be achieved. (3) The methods that most effectively achieve the aims of the control programme must be used. (4) The methods must be applied in the best possible way. (5) Whether or not each control programme actually achieved its precise aim must be assessed. (6) Once the desired aims or benefits have been achieved, steps must be taken to maintain the beneficial state. An ideal pest control method would be effective and easy to use, affordable, safe for human users and for people exposed to it, humane, specific to the target species or individuals, and safe for the environment. Although such a gold standard is difficult to achieve, we can only retain ethical credibility if we conscientiously strive to make incremental improvements towards that gold standard.

Dehorning and disbudding distress and its alleviation in calves

Dehorning and disbudding are routine painful procedures carried out on cattle to facilitate management. The pain caused by these procedures and its alleviation may be evaluated by monitoring behaviour and physiological responses, and by measuring their effects on weight gain. The cortisol response to cautery disbudding is significantly smaller than that to amputation dehorning which infers that the latter is more painful. Amputation dehorning stimulates a defined cortisol response with a rapid rise to a peak value within 30 min followed by a decline to a plateau which then declines to pre-treatment values after about 8 h. A cornual nerve blockade using lignocaine virtually eliminates the escape behaviour seen during disbudding and dehorning and reduces the plasma cortisol response to dehorning for about 2 h. Thereafter there is an increase in the plasma cortisol concentration, a delayed response, which lasts for about 6 h. A cornual nerve blockade, using lignocaine combined with cauterizing the wound caused by amputation dehorning, virtually eliminates the cortisol response as does combining a lignocaine blockade with the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ketoprofen. When xylazine is combined with a cornual nerve blockade using lignocaine before dehorning, the cortisol response is virtually eliminated for about 3 h. When this regime is used before cautery disbudding and includes a NSAID given before and after disbudding the behaviour of calves so treated suggests that pain may be alleviated for 24 h. Cautery disbudding is preferable to amputation dehorning, but for optimal pain relief xylazine sedation, local anaesthesia and a NSAID should be used with both procedures.

Animal welfare implications of neonatal mortality and morbidity in farm animals

Much has been learnt during the last 50 years about the causes of neonatal mortality and morbidity and about practical means for minimising them in newborn lambs, kids, bovine calves, deer calves, foals and piglets. The major causes of problems in these newborns are outlined briefly and include hypothermia due to excessive heat loss or to hypoxia-induced, starvation-induced or other forms of inhibited heat production. They also include maternal undernutrition, mismothering, infection and injury. The published literature reveals that the scientific investigations which clarified these causes and led to practical means for minimising the problems, involved iterative successions of self-reinforcing laboratory and field or clinical investigations conducted over many years. These studies focused largely on solutions to the problems, not on the suffering that the newborn might experience, so that an analysis of the associated welfare insults had not apparently been conducted until now. The present assessment focuses on potentially noxious subjective experiences the newborn may have. The account of the causes of neonatal mortality and morbidity outlined early in this review indicates that the key subjective experiences which require analysis in animal welfare terms are breathlessness, hypothermia, hunger, sickness and pain. Reference to documented responses of farm animals and, where appropriate, to human experience, suggests that breathlessness and hypothermia usually represent less severe neonatal welfare insults than do hunger, sickness and pain. Major science-based improvements in the management of pregnancy and birth have markedly reduced the overall amount of welfare compromise experienced by newborn farm animals and further improvements may be expected as knowledge is refined and extended in the future.

Science-based animal welfare standards: the international role of the Office International des Épizooties

The Office International des Épizooties (OIE) is a Paris-based, inter-governmental organisation with 164 member countries. Since its establishment in 1924, the OIE has made a major indirect contribution to animal welfare, at a global level, via the organisation's role in epizootic disease control. The OIE animal health code includes a chapter on minimum animal welfare standards for trade and a standard-setting role has also been played in respect of animal transportation. In 1994, the publication Animal Welfare and Veterinary Services was included in the OIE Scientific and Technical Review Series, and provides a valuable State Veterinary Service perspective on animal welfare capability and specific animal welfare issues. In drawing up its strategic plan for the period 2001 to 2005, animal welfare and food safety were identified as two areas for future OIE involvement and these were formally accepted as strategic initiatives at the 2001 OIE General Assembly meeting. An international expert group was established to provide specific recommendations on the nature and scope of the OIE's animal welfare role. The expert group's recommendations were reviewed and adopted, as Resolution XIV, at the May 2002 OIE General Assembly meeting. A permanent international working group was established and met for the first time in October 2002. This paper provides a background to animal welfare as an international trade policy issue and provides an update on progress to date in developing an OIE animal welfare mission statement, supporting guiding principles and policies, and an agreed modus operandi. Priority areas for OIE involvement are identified, and emphasis is placed on the importance of making use of all available expertise and resources, including those from academia, the research community, industry, animal welfare organisations and other relevant stakeholders.

The use of animals in research: counting the costs and the benefits

The Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes requires Animal Ethics Committees to assess the merits of any research proposal involving the use of sentient animals. As part of that assessment they should make a judgment as to whether or not the costs to the welfare of the experimental animals are outweighed by the benefits of the predicted experimental outcome (i.e. conduct a cost–benefit analysis). This paper describes one approach that has been proposed to assist Animal Ethics Committees to take all factors into account when making this judgment. When agricultural animals are used in research the potential benefits are usually measured in terms of improved health and welfare or increased productivity when the research outcomes are applied to other animals reared in agricultural enterprises. When the aim of a project is to improve the health and welfare of the animals (i.e. ‘animal benefit’), the benefits are usually obvious and counting the cost is straightforward even if the impact on the animals under experimentation is quite extreme (e.g. death as an unavoidable endpoint in a vaccination experiment). Where the benefits accrue solely in terms of increased productivity or economic gain (i.e. ‘human benefit’), then balancing the costs and the benefits can be more problematical because people’s personal beliefs and their orientation towards animal welfare influence their assessment. Economists indicate that it is not increased productivity per se that generates value but consumption. Therefore, consumer perceptions of any adverse impact that gains in productivity have on the welfare of farmed animals can play a significant role in determining the ultimate benefit (value) of a particular piece of research with the sole aim to increase production and economic gain. This paper will explore some postulated relationships between productivity and animal welfare which could influence consumer preferences and hence the cost–benefit analysis.

Assessing the Welfare Status of Newborn Farm Animals

Although major progress has been made during the last 50 years in understanding the causes of, and devising methods to minimise, neonatal mortality and morbidity in farm animals, almost all of this progress has been made without an explicit animal welfare focus. Nevertheless, knowledgeable intervention at birth now markedly reduces the total amount of animal welfare compromise that would otherwise occur. In assessing the degree of welfare compromise in other contexts three orientations are apparent. These emphasise biological function, affective state and natural living. In the present paper the significance of these orientations in an assessment of welfare compromise in newborn lambs, kids, calves, deer calves, foals and piglets, conducted previously, is examined. It is concluded that: 1) it was appropriate to emphasise biological function during the research which improved the management of newborns, but this emphasis was not sufficient to characterise the nature and degree of welfare compromise the newborn might experience; 2) a focus on affective state, and particularly on noxious sensations, more appropriately allowed an initial assignment of different degrees of compromise caused by neonatal breathlessness, hypoxia, hunger, sickness and pain; and 3) the notion that farm animals should be left to fend for themselves in a natural state at the time of birth when knowledgeable intervention would markedly reduce neonatal suffering contradicts our duty to care for the animals in our control. Finally, on-farm assessments of neonatal welfare compromise would be possible, but they would need to allow for the prevalence and severity of each condition, which can vary widely depending on the species and local circumstances.