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

The First Standardized Scoring System to Assess the Welfare of Free‐Ranging Indo‐Pacific Humpback Dolphins (Sousa chinensis)

The assessment of wild animal welfare has recently gained interest and represents a novel, complementary approach to monitoring free‐ranging populations for conservation purposes. However, few attempts have been made to develop standardized welfare assessment tools for free‐ranging animals. In the present study, a preliminary scoring system for the welfare assessment of Indo‐Pacific humpback dolphins (IPHDs) was created using the Five Domains Model. During a series of online meetings, the panel established the scoring unit, the contribution of each parameter to the four physical/functional domains, the inferred mental states and impact intensity associated with each of these parameters, and the method of aggregating parameter scores within and among domains. The resulting framework includes a total of 53 parameter scores. A total of 20 welfare‐status and 33 welfare‐alerting parameters were identified; these are aggregated into two overall welfare grades for enhancement (positive experiences) and compromise (negative experiences). The panel attributed confidence scores to the intensity impact reflected by each parameter and associated mental states. As expected, these scores reflect higher confidence in welfare‐status than welfare‐alerting parameters; welfare compromise was also attributed higher confidence than welfare enhancement and Domain 1 (Nutrition) globally received higher confidence scores than other domains. As with any expert elicitation study, subjective biases likely exist; these can be reduced through further research on the suggested parameters. The framework uses current knowledge and has been developed to enable continual improvement as further evidence becomes available on various parameters. This study represents an important step in the development of a welfare assessment tool (WAT) for IPHDs. Next steps include defining measurement methods and thresholds for scoring parameter intensities, followed by reliability testing. This WAT can then be used to systematically monitor populations of IPHDs in a way that will better inform conservation measures and ensure their effectiveness.

Rethinking the utility of the Five Domains model

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

Mental Experiences in Wild Animals: Scientifically Validating Measurable Welfare Indicators in Free-Roaming Horses

The mental experiences of animals are what characterises their welfare status. The Five Domains Model for assessing welfare aligns with the understanding that physical and mental states are linked. Following measurement of indicators within each of the four physical/functional Domains (1. Nutrition; 2. Physical environment; 3. Health; and 4. Behavioural interactions), the anticipated negative or positive affective consequences (mental experiences) are cautiously inferred and assigned to Domain 5. Those inferences derive credibility from validated knowledge of the underlying systems of physiology, neurophysiology, neuroethology and affective neuroscience. Any indicators used for assessing welfare need to be scientifically validated. This requires, firstly, evidence of the links between a measurable/observable indicator and the physical/functional impact (in Domains 1 to 4), and secondly, a demonstrable relationship between the physical/functional impact and the mental experience it is inferred the indicators reflect (in Domain five). This review refers to indicators of physical/functional states in Domains 1 to 4, which have been shown to be measurable in free-roaming wild horses, and then evaluates the scientific evidence linking them to inferred mental experiences in Domain 5. This is the first time that the scientific evidence validating a comprehensive range of welfare indicators has been synthesised in this way. Inserting these indicators into the Five Domains Model enables transparently justifiable assessment and grading of welfare status in free-roaming horses.

GLAD Scale for Ranking Welfare of Horses on Arrival after Transport to Slaughterhouses

To date, there is no official method for measuring horse welfare after transport. This study aimed to develop a scale to classify horses into four categories: good shape; light affected; affected; down (GLAD) based on their welfare impairment measured at unloading. To this end, 15 animal-based measures (ABMs), previously recorded from 1019 horses, were scored. Weight and severity scores provided by welfare experts, alongside the number of welfare principles highlighted by the ABM, were assigned to each ABM. The welfare impairment (S) of each horse was then calculated as the weighted sum of the severity scores of the 15 ABMs. Three thresholds were also set to define the four GLAD categories; the ABM "down" (i.e., horses unable to stand and walk on arrival, also considered by the law as the indicator of the worst welfare) was used as the higher threshold, S_down, (category D); the intermediate threshold, S₂, was defined by the ABM "injuries", assumed to represent highly impaired welfare (category A); the threshold, S₁, was defined assuming that significant welfare impairment starts from 20% of S₂ (L category). Horses with an S value below S₁ were considered physically and mentally fit (G category). Out of 1019, 43% of horses fell into category G, 48% into L, 9% into A, and 0.3% into D. Our scale could be useful for veterinarians to decide whether a horse can be slaughtered immediately (G), needs rest (L), needs attention (A), or euthanasia (D), but further validation is needed.

A Systematic Review on the Link between Animal Welfare and Antimicrobial Use in Captive Animals

Simple Summary

The threat of antimicrobial resistance is a global health concern, and the misuse of medications is often considered a major contributor. Thus, judicious antimicrobial stewardship in captive animal species (i.e., farm, zoo, companion, and laboratory animals) is paramount and should rely on effective strategies for the reduction of antimicrobial use (AMU). Despite the relationship between welfare, health and productivity, the role that animal welfare can play in such a reduction has been poorly investigated, especially with regards to empirical evidence. This systematic review aimed to summarise the available body of research on the link between animal welfare and AMU in captive species. The low number of publications retrieved from the search, with 76% of them published in the last five years, revealed the knowledge gap pertaining this topic. The majority of publications was on farm animals, suggesting a relevance of the topic for this group, with most of the work (82%) looking at the effect of animal welfare on AMU, rather than the opposite. Overall, better animal welfare was found to be associated with lower AMU. Studies were mainly carried out in EU, likely due to its well-known role as being the avant-garde of animal welfare and AMU. Further research is needed to support these findings, especially concerning other captive species beyond farm animals.

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to assess the link between animal welfare and antimicrobial use (AMU) in captive species (i.e., farm, zoo, companion, and laboratory animals) and its effect. Studies empirically examining the effect of welfare on AMU or vice versa were included. Studies in wild animals were excluded. A total of 6610 studies were retrieved from PubMed^® and Web of Science^® in April 2021. Despite finding several papers superficially invoking the link between welfare and AMU, most did not delve into the characteristics of this link, leading to a small number of publications retained (n = 17). The majority (76%) of the publications were published from 2017–2021. Sixteen were on farm animals, and one publication was on laboratory animals. Most of the studies (82%) looked at the effect of animal welfare on AMU. The body of research retained suggests that, in farm animals, better animal welfare often leads to lower AMU, as was hypothesised, and that, generally, poor welfare is associated with higher AMU. Additionally, AMU restrictions in organic systems may prevent animals from receiving treatment when necessary. Limitations of this study include focusing only on empirical research and excluding non-peer reviewed evidence. More research is needed to corroborate these findings, especially on the link between animal welfare and AMU in other captive species.

Scientific Assessment of the Welfare of Trapped Mammals—Key Considerations for the Use of the Sharp and Saunders Humaneness Assessment Model

Simple Summary

The use of traps is key to the success of many wildlife management programs but the species trapped, type of trap used and its application will influence the impacts it has on animal welfare. Scientific assessment of the impacts of trapping on mammal welfare is necessary to justify the use of traps, aid trap selection, improve trap performance and develop international standards. The Sharp and Saunders humaneness assessment model was developed for the purpose of assessing the relative humaneness of a range of pest animal control methods and has been used to assess the welfare impacts of trapping on various mammal species. The model is based on the established Five Domains model, the structure of which represents the understanding that an animal’s welfare state arises due to the sum of its mental experiences which may include pain, breathlessness, thirst or fear, among many others. Here we make key recommendations for those wishing to apply the Sharp and Saunders model to scientifically assess the welfare impacts of traps. Consideration of these points will help optimize the value of information produced using the model to support ethical wildlife management practice and policy and retain social acceptance of management programs that involve trapping.

Abstract

Scientific assessment of the impacts of trapping on mammal welfare is necessary to inform cost-benefit analyses of using traps in wildlife management, improve trap performance and trapping processes and develop international trap standards. The Sharp and Saunders humaneness assessment model was developed specifically for assessing welfare impacts in vertebrate wildlife management and has been used to assess the impacts of trapping various mammals. It is a specific version of the more general Five Domains model for welfare assessment which is based on the understanding that welfare state reflects the sum of the animal’s mental experiences. Our experience of applying the Sharp and Saunders model allows us to make key recommendations for those wishing to use it. First, the exact parameters of the trapping scenario to be assessed must be decided. Second, assessments should be based on published data, as well as integrating both scientific and practitioner expertise to provide rigorous and relevant outcomes. Third, conclusions about welfare impacts should be based on the appropriate indicators. As far as is possible, mental experiences should be inferred using animal-based indicators, and some representation should be provided of the scorers’ confidence in the data on which assessment is based. Careful consideration of these points will help optimize the value of information produced using the model for wildlife management decision-making.

The Animal Welfare Science of Working Dogs: Current Perspectives on Recent Advances and Future Directions

Working dogs are prevalent throughout our societies, assisting people in diverse contexts, from explosives detection and livestock herding, to therapy partners. Our scientific exploration and understanding of animal welfare have grown dramatically over the last decade. As community attitudes toward the use of animals continue to change, applying this new knowledge of welfare to improve the everyday lives of working dogs will underpin the sustainability of working with dogs in these roles. The aim of this report was to consider the scientific studies of working dogs from the last decade (2011–2021) in relation to modern ethics, human interaction, and the five domains of animal welfare: nutrition, environment, behavioral interaction, physical health, and mental state. Using this framework, we were able to analyze the concept and contribution of working dog welfare science. Noting some key advances across the full working dog life cycle, we identify future directions and opportunities for interdisciplinary research to optimize dog welfare. Prioritizing animal welfare in research and practice will be critical to assure the ongoing relationship between dogs and people as co-workers.

Is Animal Welfare an Internationally Understood Concept in the Zoo World? Thematic Analysis of Two Regional Groups of Zoo Staff

Simple Summary

In order to ensure we do not speak at cross-purposes, common understandings and definitions are useful. However, there is no universal definition of animal welfare. Structured interviews with a sample of European and Chinese zoo staff aimed to explore their perceptions and understanding of the term ‘animal welfare’, and the use of animal welfare frameworks in a zoological context. Thematic analysis demonstrated that all interviewees used similar descriptors when discussing animal welfare including describing animal feelings and emotions. Animal welfare frameworks were considered useful across both regions. However, different frameworks were suggested by interviewees in Europe to those in China. Chinese zoo staff expressed the importance of leadership in animal welfare in Chinese zoos. These findings suggest a common understanding of the concept of animal welfare, and the usefulness of animal welfare frameworks across geographically and culturally diverse regions.

Abstract

Universal frameworks for zoo animal welfare have been suggested. However, there is little evidence of a cross-cultural understanding of zoo animal welfare. This paper reports themes emerging from a qualitative study of international (European and Chinese) zoo professionals on zoo animal welfare issues. Structured telephone interviews were conducted with eight Chinese and eight European zoo staff, covering aspects of zoological animal welfare, conservation and zoological husbandry practices. These qualitative data were thematically analysed, and key themes generated. This paper describes three themes relating to ‘What is animal welfare’ ‘Animal welfare frameworks’ and ‘The human element in animal welfare’. This analysis indicates that the concept of animal welfare has cultural equivalence across Europe and between Europe and China, and that zoo staff are familiar with welfare frameworks. In China, a need for senior leadership and motivating staff to improve animal welfare emerged.

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.

A Ten-Stage Protocol for Assessing the Welfare of Individual Non-Captive Wild Animals: Free-Roaming Horses (Equus Ferus Caballus) as an Example

Knowledge of the welfare status of wild animals is vital for informing debates about the ways in which we interact with wild animals and their habitats. Currently, there is no published information about how to scientifically assess the welfare of free-roaming wild animals during their normal day-to-day lives. Using free-roaming horses as an example, we describe a ten-stage protocol for systematically and scientifically assessing the welfare of individual non-captive wild animals. The protocol starts by emphasising the importance of readers having an understanding of animal welfare in a conservation context and also of the Five Domains Model for assessing welfare. It goes on to detail what species-specific information is required to assess welfare, how to identify measurable and observable indicators of animals' physical states and how to identify which individuals are being assessed. Further, it addresses how to select appropriate methods for measuring/observing physical indicators of welfare, the scientific validation of these indicators and then the grading of animals' welfare states, along with assigning a confidence score. Finally, grading future welfare risks and how these can guide management decisions is discussed. Applying this ten-stage protocol will enable biologists to scientifically assess the welfare of wild animals and should lead to significant advances in the field of wild animal welfare.

The Welfare of Pig-Hunting Dogs in Australia

Hunting feral pigs using dogs is a popular recreational activity in Australia. Dogs are used to flush, chase, bail, and hold feral pigs, and their use for these activities is legal in some states and territories and illegal in others. However, there is little knowledge about the health and welfare of dogs owned specifically for the purpose of pig hunting. We conducted a review of the literature on working dogs in Australia and overseas to determine the likely welfare impacts confronting pig-hunting dogs. We identified numerous challenges facing pig-hunting dogs throughout their lives. Risks to welfare include overbreeding, wastage due to behavioural incompatibilities, the use of aversive training techniques including electronic shock collars, solitary kenneling and tethering, high exposure to infectious diseases including zoonotic diseases, inadequate vaccination and anthelmintic prophlyaxis, high incidence of traumatic and other injuries during hunts, climatic exposure during transportation, mortality during hunts, and a suboptimal quality of life after retirement. There are also significant welfare concerns for the wild pigs hunted in this manner. We conclude that research needs to be conducted in order to determine the current health and welfare of pig-hunting dogs, specifically in Australia. The humaneness of this method of pest control urgently requires further assessment.

Welfare-aligned Sentience: Enhanced Capacities to Experience, Interact, Anticipate, Choose and Survive

The focus of this opinion is on the key features of sentience in animals which can experience different states of welfare, encapsulated by the new term 'welfare-aligned sentience'. This term is intended to exclude potential forms of sentience that do not enable animals in some taxa to have the subjective experiences which underlie different welfare states. As the scientific understanding of key features of sentience has increased markedly during the last 10 to 15 years, a major purpose here is to provide up-to-date information regarding those features. Eleven interconnected statements about sentience-associated body functions and behaviour are therefore presented and explained briefly. These statements are sequenced to provide progressively more information about key scientifically-supported attributes of welfare-aligned sentience, leading, in their entirety, to a more comprehensive understanding of those attributes. They are as follows: (1) Internal structure-function interactions and integration are the foundations of sentience; (2) animals posess a capacity to respond behaviourally to a range of sensory inputs; (3) the more sophisticated nervous systems can generate subjective experiences, that is, affects; (4) sentience means that animals perceive or experience different affects consciously; (5) within a species, the stage of neurobiological development is significant; (6) during development the onset of cortically-based consciousness is accompanied by cognitively-enhanced capacities to respond behaviourally to unpredictable postnatal environments; (7) sentience includes capacities to communicate with others and to interact with the environment; (8) sentience incorporates experiences of negative and positive affects; (9) negative and positive affective experiences 'matter' to animals for various reasons; (10) acknowledged obstacles inherent in anthropomorphism are largely circumvented by new scientific knowledge, but caution is still required; and (11) there is increasing evidence for sentience among a wider range of invertebrates. The science-based explanations of these statements provide the foundation for a brief definition of 'welfare-aligned sentience', which is offered for consideration. Finally, it is recommended that when assessing key features of sentience the same emphasis should be given to positive and negative affective experiences in the context of their roles in, or potential impacts on, animal welfare.

A Preliminary Description of Companion Cat, Managed Stray Cat, and Unmanaged Stray Cat Welfare in Auckland, New Zealand Using a 5-Component Assessment Scale

Free-roaming cats are a polarizing issue in New Zealand and there is strong need for a comprehensive evaluation of their welfare to better inform population management decisions. In this study, a 5-component visual health-related welfare assessment scale was developed and piloted on a convenience sample of 213 free-roaming companion cats (CC), 210 managed stray cats (MS), and 253 unmanaged stray cats (UMS) from various locations in Auckland, New Zealand. The welfare assessment was performed through distance observation and consisted of body condition score (BCS); coat condition score; nose and eye discharge score; ear crusting score; and injury score. The majority of cats in all groups appeared generally healthy with no nose or eye discharge, ear crusting, or injuries. Although there were no appreciable differences in the apparent welfare of CC and MS cats, future studies with more robust sampling designs are needed to draw accurate inferences. The scale also requires further validation by comparing the visual observations against more detailed physical examination and biochemical data. Nonetheless, the results from this study provide preliminary information about assessing the health and welfare of stray cats as well as considerations for developing and implementing robust assessment scales.

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.

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.