Thirty years after Brambell: whither animal welfare science?

Review: Towards an integrated concept of animal welfare

Animal welfare is an important field of study due to animal sentience, yet there is to date no consensus on the definition of animal welfare. There have been four key developments in the field of animal welfare science since its birth: the theoretical and empirical study of affective states, and hence our understanding thereof, has increased; there has been a shift from a primary focus on unpleasant experiences towards an inclusion of pleasant experiences; there has been an increasing mention and investigation of the notion of cumulation of experiences in time, and with this, the importance of the time component of both affective states and animal welfare has come forward. Following others, we define welfare as a balance or cumulation of pleasant and unpleasant experiences over time. The time period of welfare depends on when welfare considerations are necessary, and may range from the duration of single and relatively short-term experiences to the entire life of an animal. We further propose that animal welfare conceptualised in this way can be assessed at three levels: level 1 represents the assessment of the environment and 'internal factors' such as health and personality, which interact in their impact on the affective experiences of animals; level 2 represents the assessment of affective states; and level 3 represents the assessment of the balance or cumulation of these affective states in time. The advancement of research necessitates studies to be more or less comparable, and this would be facilitated by researchers mentioning which concept of animal welfare they are basing their work on, at which level of assessment they are working, which assumptions they might be drawing from to infer welfare and which time period of interest they are focusing on, even if this is not mirrored by the timing of the assessment in practice. Assessment at levels 2 and 3 still needs much study, at both the theoretical and empirical levels, including agreements on validation tools.

Animal Welfare and the Acknowledgment of Cultural Differences

Pigs are considered sentient beings that have a mental capability that warrants attention to their welfare. Cultural values towards animal welfare differ in world regions. Still, authors have argued for worldwide harmonization of animal welfare rules. At the same time, the focus of many animal welfare rules do not address the most significant problems on modern commercial pig farms. The foci of animal welfare rules are often on space (quantity and quality), acute painful practices, equipment, and caretaker behavior. However, most serious animal welfare issues are related to episodic events such as compromised pigs, lack of appropriately skilled staff, and human behavior (or lack thereof) towards animals. Modern technologies such as image, sound, and building oversight by automated systems can potentially provide better individual pig care. The future should bring us solutions to identify and resolve episodic negative animal welfare events. The other issues of space and painful practices are best improved by using science-based solutions. We propose that science be the key resource to making animal welfare decisions, but with a healthy appreciation and respect for cultural differences in our views of animals and the economic impact of rules. Colonialism is not viewed positively today, and economic neo-colonialism should not be allowed to replace it. Respect for cultural differences should play a role in animal welfare rules within and among countries.

Assessing Animal Welfare with Behavior: Onward with Caution

An emphasis on ensuring animal welfare is growing in zoo and aquarium associations around the globe. This has led to a focus on measures of welfare outcomes for individual animals. Observations and interpretations of behavior are the most widely used outcome-based measures of animal welfare. They commonly serve as a diagnostic tool from which practitioners make animal welfare decisions and suggest treatments, yet errors in data collection and interpretation can lead to the potential for misdiagnosis. We describe the perils of incorrect welfare diagnoses and common mistakes in applying behavior-based tools. The missteps that can be made in behavioral assessment include mismatches between definitions of animal welfare and collected data, lack of alternative explanations, faulty logic, behavior interpreted out of context, murky assumptions, lack of behavior definitions, and poor justification for assigning a welfare value to a specific behavior. Misdiagnosing the welfare state of an animal has negative consequences. These include continued poor welfare states, inappropriate use of resources, lack of understanding of welfare mechanisms and the perpetuation of the previously mentioned faulty logic throughout the wider scientific community. We provide recommendations for assessing behavior-based welfare tools, and guidance for those developing tools and interpreting data.

Where Do We Stand in the Domestic Dog ( Canis familiaris ) Positive-Emotion Assessment: A State-of-the-Art Review and Future Directions

Although there have been a growing number of studies focusing on dog welfare, the research field concerning dog positive-emotion assessment remains mostly unexplored. This paper aims to provide a state-of-the-art review and summary of the scattered and disperse research on dog positive-emotion assessment. The review notably details the current advancement in dog positive-emotion research, what approaches, measures, methods, and techniques have been implemented so far in emotion perception, processing, and response assessment. Moreover, we propose possible future research directions for short-term emotion as well as longer-term emotional states assessment in dogs. The review ends by identifying and addressing some methodological limitations and by pointing out further methodological research needs.

I Am a Compassionate Conservation Welfare Scientist: Considering the Theoretical and Practical Differences Between Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare

Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare are two disciplines whose practitioners advocate consideration of individual wild animals within conservation practice and policy. However, they are not, as is sometimes suggested, the same. Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare are based on different underpinning ethics, which sometimes leads to conflicting views about the kinds of conservation activities and decisions that are acceptable. Key differences between the disciplines appear to relate to their views about which wild animals can experience harms, the kinds of harms they can experience and how we can know about and confidently evidence those harms. Conservation Welfare scientists seek to engage with conservation scientists with the aim of facilitating ongoing incremental improvements in all aspects of conservation, i.e., minimizing harms to animals. In contrast, it is currently unclear how the tenets of Compassionate Conservation can be used to guide decision-making in complex or novel situations. Thus, Conservation Welfare may offer modern conservationists a more palatable approach to integrating evidence-based consideration of individual sentient animals into conservation practice and policy.

Effect of transportation and shackling on plasma concentrations of corticosterone and heterophil to lymphocyte ratios in market weight male turkeys in a commercial operation

There is limited information on the effects of stress and/or physiological manipulation on either plasma concentrations of corticosterone (CORT) and/or heterophil: lymphocyte (H : L) ratios in turkeys. The present studies examine the effects of catching/transportation/lairage in a holding shed and shackling on plasma concentrations of CORT and H : L ratios in male market weight turkeys. Plasma concentrations of CORT were increased after transportation and lairage but not further elevated by shackling, irrespective of its duration up to 240 s. In one study, there were increased H : L ratios following catching/placing birds into transportation cages/transportation/lairage. In one study, H : L ratios declined following shackling. It is concluded that while moving turkeys from the farm to immediately before the shackling line is stressful, shackling for up to 4 min was not perceived as more stressful in turkeys. There were also differences between farms/houses for both plasma concentrations of CORT and H : L ratios.

Improving the Welfare of Companion Dogs-Is Owner Education the Solution?

Simple Summary

The welfare of most dogs living in homes is largely unknown. However, national surveys carried out by animal welfare charities and findings by animal welfare researchers have shown significant deterioration in some key aspects of dog welfare. For example, more dogs presenting to vets with behavioural problems, obesity, and ill-health due to poor breeding practices. This means that some dogs are suffering due to their owners’ behaviours or ownership practices. Educating dog owners as to how best to look after their dogs is, and has been seen by many, as key to improving the welfare of dogs living in homes. However, the concept of education, the context in which it occurs, and the lack of systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of education interventions means that nobody really knows if this approach works. This paper explores these concepts and draws together a wide range of sources of information to highlight some of the complexities of improving dog welfare by educating owners.

Abstract

Vets, animal welfare charities, and researchers have frequently cited educating owners as a necessity for improving the welfare of companion dogs. The assumption that improving an owner’s knowledge through an education intervention subsequently results in improvements in the welfare of the dog appears reasonable. However, the complexity of dog welfare and dog ownership and the context in which these relationships occur is rapidly changing. Psychology has demonstrated that humans are complex, with values, attitudes, and beliefs influencing our behaviours as much as knowledge and understanding. Equally, the context in which we individuals and our dogs live is rapidly changing and responding to evolving societal and cultural norms. Therefore, we seek to understand education’s effectiveness as an approach to improving welfare through exploring and understanding these complexities, in conjunction with the relevant research from the disciplines of science education and communication. We argue that well designed and rigorously evaluated education interventions can play a part in the challenge of improving welfare, but that these may have limited scope, and welfare scientists could further consider extending cross-disciplinary, cross-boundary working, and research in order to improve the welfare of companion dogs.

'More than a feeling': An empirical investigation of hedonistic accounts of animal welfare

Many scientists studying animal welfare appear to hold a hedonistic concept of welfare -whereby welfare is ultimately reducible to an animal's subjective experience. The substantial advances in assessing animal's subjective experience have enabled us to take a step back to consider whether such indicators are all one needs to know if one is interested in the welfare of an individual. To investigate this claim, we randomly assigned participants (n = 502) to read one of four vignettes describing a hypothetical chimpanzee and asked them to make judgments about the animal's welfare. Vignettes were designed to systematically manipulate the descriptive mental states the chimpanzee was described as experiencing: feels good (FG) vs. feels bad (FB); as well as non-subjective features of the animal's life: natural living and physical healthy (NH) vs. unnatural life and physically unhealthy (UU); creating a fully-crossed 2 (subjective experience) X 2 (objective life value) experimental design. Multiple regression analysis showed welfare judgments depended on the objective features of the animal's life more than they did on how the animal was feeling: a chimpanzee living a natural life with negative emotions was rated as having better welfare than a chimpanzee living an unnatural life with positive emotions. We also found that the supposedly more purely psychological concept of happiness was also influenced by normative judgments about the animal's life. For chimpanzees with positive emotions, those living a more natural life were rated as happier than those living an unnatural life. Insofar as analyses of animal welfare are assumed to be reflective of folk intuitions, these findings raise questions about a strict hedonistic account of animal welfare. More generally, this research demonstrates the potential utility of using empirical methods to address conceptual problems in animal welfare and ethics.

The multifactorial role of the 3Rs in shifting the harm-benefit analysis in animal models of disease

Ethics on animal use in science in Western society is based on utilitarianism, weighing the harms and benefits to the animals involved against those of the intended human beneficiaries. The 3Rs concept (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) is both a robust framework for minimizing animal use and suffering (addressing the harms to animals) and a means of supporting high quality science and translation (addressing the benefits). The ambiguity of basic research performed early in the research continuum can sometimes make harm-benefit analysis more difficult since anticipated benefit is often an incremental contribution to a field of knowledge. On the other hand, benefit is much more evident in translational research aimed at developing treatments for direct application in humans or animals suffering from disease. Though benefit may be easier to define, it should certainly not be considered automatic. Issues related to model validity seriously compromise experiments and have been implicated as a major impediment in translation, especially in complex disease models where harms to animals can be intensified. Increased investment and activity in the 3Rs is delivering new research models, tools and approaches with reduced reliance on animal use, improved animal welfare, and improved scientific and predictive value.

Searching for Animal Sentience: A Systematic Review of the Scientific Literature

Knowledge of animal sentience is fundamental to many disciplines and imperative to the animal welfare movement. In this review, we examined what is being explored and discussed, regarding animal sentience, within the scientific literature. Rather than attempting to extract meaning from the many complex and abstract definitions of animal sentience, we searched over two decades of scientific literature using a peer-reviewed list of 174 keywords. The list consisted of human emotions, terminology associated with animal sentience, and traits often thought to be indicative of subjective states. We discovered that very little was actually being explored, and instead there was already much agreement about what animals can feel. Why then is there so much scepticism surrounding the science of animal sentience? Sentience refers to the subjective states of animals, and so is often thought to be impossible to measure objectively. However, when we consider that much of the research found to accept and utilise animal sentience is performed for the development of human drugs and treatment, it appears that measuring sentience is, after all, not quite as impossible as was previously thought. In this paper, we explored what has been published on animal sentience in the scientific literature and where the gaps in research lie. We drew conclusions on the implications for animal welfare science and argued for the importance of addressing these gaps in our knowledge. We found that there is a need for more research on positive emotional states in animals, and that there is still much to learn about taxa such as invertebrates. Such information will not only be useful in supporting and initiating legislative amendments but will help to increase understanding, and potentially positive actions and attitudes towards animals.

Is welfare all that matters? A discussion of what should be included in policy-making regarding animals

Policy-making concerned with animals often includes human interests, such as economy, trade, environmental protection, disease control, species conservation etc. When it comes to the interests of the animals, such policy-making often makes use of the results of animal welfare science to provide assessments of ethically relevant concerns for animals. This has provided a scientific rigour that has helped to overcome controversies and allowed debates to move forward according to generally agreed methodologies. However, this focus can lead to policies leaving out other important issues relevant to animals. This can be considered as a problem of what is included in welfare science, or of what is included in policy. This suggests two possible solutions: expanding animal welfare science to address all ethical concerns about animals’ interests or widening the perspective considered in policymaking to encompass other important ethical concerns about animals than welfare. The latter appears the better option. This requires both a ‘philosophy of animal welfare science’, a ‘philosophy of decision-making about animals’, and greater transparency about what is included or excluded from both animal welfare science and the politics of animal policy.

Competing conceptions of animal welfare and their ethical implications for the treatment of non-human animals

Animal welfare has been conceptualized in such a way that the use of animals in science and for food seems justified. I argue that those who have done this have appropriated the concept of animal welfare, claiming to give a scientific account that is more objective than the "sentimental" account given by animal liberationists. This strategy seems to play a major role in supporting merely limited reform in the use of animals and seems to support the assumption that there are conditions under which animals may be raised and slaughtered for food that are ethically acceptable. Reformists do not need to make this assumption, but they tend to conceptualize animal welfare is such a way that death does not count as harmful to the interests of animals, nor prolonged life a benefit. In addition to this prudential value assumption, some members of this community have developed strategies for defending suitably reformed farming practices as ethical even granting that death and some other forms of constraints are harms. One such strategy is the fiction of a domestic contract. However, if one accepts the conceptualization of human welfare give by L. W. Sumner, and applies it to animals in the way that I think is justified, an accurate conceptualization of animal welfare has different implications for which uses of animals should be regarded as ethically acceptable. In this paper I give an historical and philosophical account of animal welfare conceptulization and use this account to argue that animal breeders, as custodians of the animals they breed, have the ethical responsibility to help their animal wards achieve as much autonomy as possible in choosing the form of life made available to them and to provide that life. Attempts to avoid these implications by alluding to a contract model of the relationship between custodians and their wards fail to relieve custodians of their ethical responsibilities of care.

Animal-based welfare monitoring: using keeper ratings as an assessment tool

Zoological institutions are in urgent need of identifying and implementing welfare assessment tools that allow for ongoing, quantitative monitoring of individual animal well-being. Although the American Zoological Association's (AZA) Animal Welfare Committee (AWC) promotes the use of such tools in internal review processes, current approaches to institutional welfare assessment are resource-based and outline the resources, environmental parameters and "best practices" recommended for promoting good welfare in a species in general. We highlight the value of incorporating animal-based monitoring tools that capture the individual animal's perspective and subjective experiences, including positive events and feelings, by validating zookeepers' qualitative assessments. We present evidence that, across a variety of species, caretakers' assessments of traits related to the well-being of individual animals can be both reliable and valid. Furthermore, we demonstrate that among researchers investigating the welfare of farm, laboratory, companion and even zoo animals, support already exists for developing and validating instruments that objectively evaluate the qualitative assessments of caretakers. Finally, we outline a process currently being evaluated at Brookfield Zoo for developing, validating and testing a cost-effective, user-friendly monitoring tool that will help to quantify keepers' qualitative assessments of individual well-being and can be integrated into daily operations. This tool (i.e. species-specific Welfare Score Sheets designed through consultation with animal experts) will result in weekly scores of individual well-being that are expected to provide a first indicator of welfare issues in the collection. Specifically, scores can be reviewed during regular workgroup meetings to identify welfare issues proactively, to assess whether particular conditions, practices or events impact individual well-being, and finally, to evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to address welfare issues. Upon completion of the tool validation and testing phases, we plan to make the Welfare Score Sheets for our 12 study species available to other institutions, and the methods we applied may serve as a "blueprint" for creating similar tools for additional species and institutions.

Is quality of life a useful concept for companion animals?

Although the term ‘quality of life’ (QoL) is not unfamiliar to veterinary surgeons, only recently has the scientific community attempted to measure it in farm and companion animals. Typically such studies have applied methodologies from the field of human health-related quality of life (HRQoL), without due consideration of the applicability of both the term and its measurement to animals. However, it is necessary to clarify the philosophical basis of QoL if it is to be defended as a rigorous and reliable aid to decision-making in animal welfare science. In this paper we review common concepts in human HRQoL and discuss the value of, and difficulties regarding, the transfer of the concept of human HRQoL to companion animals. Human definitions tend to focus on individuals and their assessment of the state of their life in terms of physical, social and psychological functioning. The use of the term ‘quality of life’ for animals may therefore expand on what is usually considered when using the term ‘welfare’, and thereby improve on current practice, which tends to focus on relatively few outcome measures that are largely indicative of poor welfare. However, failure in the human literature to properly define QoL and defend the choice of measures accordingly, together with the common use of objective indicators and proxies, has led to confusion over the relative roles of objective and subjective measures in the determination and constitution of QoL. A suggestion for an appropriate definition of animal QoL that clarifies these relationships is offered, together with a list of social/environmental and physical/psychological health-related domains that may be suitable for a generic companion animal QoL assessment tool. In the absence of knowledge on both basic needs and individual preferences, particularly for institutionalised animals, QoL tools may be more appropriately designed as outcome-based tools, focussing on observable signs of health and behaviour. The extent to which recent QoL assessment tools for companion animals have covered these domains, and the extent to which the psychometric properties of the tools have been addressed, is also briefly discussed.

A new animal welfare concept based on allostasis

Animal welfare is an increasing issue of public concern and debate. As a result, many countries are reconsidering the way animal welfare is embedded in the legislation and rules for housing and care of animals. This requires general agreement of what animal welfare is. Unfortunately, the current science of animal welfare is less scientific than what has been claimed. In our view, it is overly guided by anthropocentric thinking about how animals ought to be handled and neglects the latest concept of physiology: 'The Allostasis Concept'. Allostasis, which means stability through change, has the potential to replace homeostasis as the core model of physiological regulation. Not constancy or freedoms, but capacity to change is crucial to good physical and mental health and good animal welfare. Therefore, not homeostasis but allostasis is at the basis of our new animal welfare concept. This paper is aimed at a broader scientific discussion of animal welfare that includes knowledge from the latest scientific developments in neurobiology and behavioral physiology, and generates views that are extremely relevant for the animal welfare discussion.