1
|
Candiani D, Drewe J, Forkman B, Herskin MS, Van Soom A, Aboagye G, Ashe S, Mountricha M, Van der Stede Y, Fabris C. Scientific and technical assistance on welfare aspects related to housing and health of cats and dogs in commercial breeding establishments. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08213. [PMID: 37719917 PMCID: PMC10500269 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8213] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/19/2023] Open
Abstract
This Scientific Report addresses a mandate from the European Commission according to Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 on the welfare of cats and dogs in commercial breeding establishments kept for sport, hunting and companion purposes. The aim was to scrutinise recent recommendations made by the EU Platform on Animal Welfare Voluntary Initiative on measures to assist the preparation of policy options for the legal framework of commercial breeding of cats and dogs. Specifically, the main question addressed was if there is scientific evidence to support the measures for protection of cats and dogs in commercial breeding related to housing, health considerations and painful procedures. Three judgements were carried out based on scientific literature reviews and, where possible a review of national regulations. The first judgement addressed housing and included: type of accommodation, outdoor access, exercise, social behaviour, housing temperature and light requirements. The second judgement addressed health and included: age at first and last breeding, and breeding frequency. Judgement 3 addressed painful procedures (mutilations or convenience surgeries) and included: ear cropping, tail docking and vocal cord resections in dogs and declawing in cats. For each of these judgements, considerations were provided indicating where scientific literature is available to support recommendations on providing or avoiding specific housing, health or painful surgical interventions. Areas where evidence is lacking are indicated.
Collapse
|
2
|
Green J, Jakins C, de Waal L, D’Cruze N. Ending Commercial Lion Farming in South Africa: A Gap Analysis Approach. Animals (Basel) 2021; 11:ani11061717. [PMID: 34201312 PMCID: PMC8228895 DOI: 10.3390/ani11061717] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2021] [Revised: 06/04/2021] [Accepted: 06/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary In South Africa, African lions (Panthera leo) are bred on farms for commercial purposes such as tourism, trophy hunting, and the international traditional medicine market. Despite its legal status, South Africa’s growing lion farming industry is a contentious issue. In 2020, a high-level panel was appointed to review the policies, legislation, and management of breeding, hunting, trade, and handling of four wildlife species, namely rhino, elephant, leopard, and lions. In May 2021, it was announced that the government will stop issuing permits to new entrants into this industry as well as the issuance of hunting permits and will start amending permit conditions to prohibit breeding and exclude tourism interactions with captive lions, effectively ending the lion farming industry. In order to follow this line of action, a comprehensive, well-managed plan will be required to ensure a responsible transition away from the current industry. Here, using a “gap analysis” management tool, we outline some of the key considerations necessary for a responsible, well-managed exit from the lion farming industry in South Africa. We compiled key background information about the current state of the industry and use this information to identify desired management states and specific steps that could facilitate a successful phase out of lion farming. Abstract African lions (Panthera leo) are commercially farmed across South Africa for sport hunting, tourism, and the international bone trade, primarily in Southeast Asia. Despite its legal status, South Africa’s growing lion farming industry is a contentious issue. In 2020 a high-level panel was initiated to review the policies, legislation, and management regarding the breeding, hunting, trade, and handling of four wildlife species, including lions. In May 2021, it was announced that the government intends to amend existing permit conditions to prohibit lion breeding and tourism interactions with captive lions, as well as to stop issuing permits to new entrants into the industry, effectively ending lion farming. In order to follow this line of action, a comprehensive, well-managed plan will be necessary to execute a responsible exit from the industry as it currently stands. Using a “gap analysis” management tool, we aim to: (1) outline some of the key considerations regarding the current state of the lion farming industry in South Africa; and (2) propose specific action steps that could be taken within five key areas (regulation, animal welfare, health and safety, equitability, and conservation) to help inform a responsible transition away from this type of wildlife farming in the biodiversity economy. For our gap analysis, we conducted a semi-systematic literature search to compile key background information about the current state of the industry. This information was then used to identify corresponding desired management states, and steps that could facilitate a successful phase out of lion farming in South Africa. We hope our approach helps identify key considerations for a responsible transition and can help aid decisions during the management of this process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennah Green
- World Animal Protection 222 Gray’s Inn Rd., London WC1X 8HB, UK;
| | - Catherine Jakins
- Blood Lion NPC, P.O. Box 1554, Hermanus 7200, South Africa; (C.J.); (L.d.W.)
| | - Louise de Waal
- Blood Lion NPC, P.O. Box 1554, Hermanus 7200, South Africa; (C.J.); (L.d.W.)
| | - Neil D’Cruze
- World Animal Protection 222 Gray’s Inn Rd., London WC1X 8HB, UK;
- Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Tubney House, Abingdon Road, Tubney, Abingdon OX13 5QL, UK
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Blackman SA, Wilson BJ, Reed AR, McGreevy PD. Reported Motivations and Aims of Australian Dog Breeders-A Pilot Study. Animals (Basel) 2020; 10:ani10122319. [PMID: 33297412 PMCID: PMC7762288 DOI: 10.3390/ani10122319] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2020] [Revised: 12/02/2020] [Accepted: 12/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary In Australia, it is estimated that approximately 400,000 puppies are born each year. These are bred both by breeders affiliated with breeding associations and by others with no such affiliation. There is no way to measure accurately the number of people breeding dogs because there is no national requirement to register breeding activities and dogs are relatively easy to breed and sell without the keeping of records. The only accurate publicly available figures are the number of ANKC registered breeders of pure-breed dogs and the number of puppies that these breeders produce and register. In 2019, these breeders bred fewer than 67,000 puppies. Little is known about what motivates breeders and what breeding practices they adopt. Less still is known about whether breeders prioritize practices that ensure that puppies are suitable as companion animals. This article explores the reported breeding motivations, objectives, and breeding and selling practices of 275 breeders who undertook an online survey. It reveals that most respondents view their breeding as a hobby, and they breed because of a love for a certain breed of dog. They report that they seek to breed healthy companion animals and are committed to the long-term health of the puppies they are producing. When they decided to start breeding, most respondents recall that they were not motivated by money, but they currently report that the aim to make money on each litter is very important. Abstract It is estimated that around 40% of Australian households currently own dogs that have been acquired from a variety of sources, including purpose-bred litters. However, little is known about how litters are being planned, whelped, and raised and less still on what motivates breeders to adopt their current practices. The current study used on online survey to explore the motivations and aims of Australian dog breeders; the breeding and selling practices Australian dog breeders favor and the extent to which breeders classify their breeding in terms of business, or hobby. Responses from breeders (n = 275) revealed that whilst most did not commence breeding to make financial gain, 86% of participants who answered the question confirmed that the making of money when they breed was a very important aim. Most breeders did not view their breeding as a commercial activity, despite nearly 20% of them confirming that they had declared income from the breeding and selling of puppies to the Australian Taxation Office.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simone A. Blackman
- Tasmanian College of Business and Economics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7005, Australia
- Correspondence:
| | - Bethany J. Wilson
- Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; (B.J.W.); (P.D.M.)
| | | | - Paul D. McGreevy
- Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; (B.J.W.); (P.D.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Tenger-Trolander A, Kronforst MR. Migration behaviour of commercial monarchs reared outdoors and wild-derived monarchs reared indoors. Proc Biol Sci 2020; 287:20201326. [PMID: 32752991 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2020.1326] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Captive rearing of monarch butterflies is a commercial and personal pursuit enjoyed by many different groups and individuals. However, the practice remains controversial, especially after new evidence showed that both a group of commercially derived monarchs reared outdoors and a group of wild-derived but indoor-reared monarchs failed to orient south, unlike wild-derived monarchs reared outdoors. To more fully characterize the mechanisms responsible for the loss of orientation in both commercial and indoor-reared monarchs, we performed flight simulator experiments to determine (i) whether any fraction of commercial monarchs maintains a southern heading over multiple tests, and (ii) whether indoor conditions with the addition of sunlight can induce southern flight in wild-derived monarchs. Commercial monarchs changed their flight direction more often over the course of multiple tests than wild-derived monarchs. While as a group the commercial monarchs did not fly south on average, a subset of individuals did orient south over multiple tests, potentially explaining the discordance between flight simulator assays and the recovery of tagged commercial monarchs at overwintering locations. We also show that even when raised indoors with sunlight, wild-derived monarchs did not consistently orient south in the flight simulator, though wild-derived monarchs reared outdoors did orient south.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Marcus R Kronforst
- Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Nuno A, Blumenthal JM, Austin TJ, Bothwell J, Ebanks-Petrie G, Godley BJ, Broderick AC. Understanding implications of consumer behavior for wildlife farming and sustainable wildlife trade. Conserv Biol 2018; 32:390-400. [PMID: 28815792 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12998] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2017] [Revised: 07/28/2017] [Accepted: 08/11/2017] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
Unsustainable wildlife trade affects biodiversity and the livelihoods of communities dependent upon those resources. Wildlife farming has been proposed to promote sustainable trade, but characterizing markets and understanding consumer behavior remain neglected but essential steps in the design and evaluation of such operations. We used sea turtle trade in the Cayman Islands, where turtles have been farm raised for human consumption for almost 50 years, as a case study to explore consumer preferences toward wild-sourced (illegal) and farmed (legal) products and potential conservation implications. Combining methods innovatively (including indirect questioning and choice experiments), we conducted a nationwide trade assessment through in-person interviews from September to December 2014. Households were randomly selected using disproportionate stratified sampling, and responses were weighted based on district population size. We approached 597 individuals, of which 37 (6.2%) refused to participate. Although 30% of households had consumed turtle in the previous 12 months, the purchase and consumption of wild products was rare (e.g., 64-742 resident households consumed wild turtle meat [i.e., 0.3-3.5% of households] but represented a large threat to wild turtles in the area due to their reduced populations). Differences among groups of consumers were marked, as identified through choice experiments, and price and source of product played important roles in their decisions. Despite the long-term practice of farming turtles, 13.5% of consumers showed a strong preference for wild products, which demonstrates the limitations of wildlife farming as a single tool for sustainable wildlife trade. By using a combination of indirect questioning, choice experiments, and sales data to investigate demand for wildlife products, we obtained insights about consumer behavior that can be used to develop conservation-demand-focused initiatives. Lack of data from long-term social-ecological assessments hinders the evaluation of and learning from wildlife farming. This information is key to understanding under which conditions different interventions (e.g., bans, wildlife farming, social marketing) are likely to succeed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Nuno
- Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter Cornwall Campus, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9EZ, U.K
| | - J M Blumenthal
- Department of Environment, P.O. Box 10202, Grand Cayman KY1-1002, Cayman Islands
| | - T J Austin
- Department of Environment, P.O. Box 10202, Grand Cayman KY1-1002, Cayman Islands
| | - J Bothwell
- Department of Environment, P.O. Box 10202, Grand Cayman KY1-1002, Cayman Islands
| | - G Ebanks-Petrie
- Department of Environment, P.O. Box 10202, Grand Cayman KY1-1002, Cayman Islands
| | - B J Godley
- Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter Cornwall Campus, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9EZ, U.K
| | - A C Broderick
- Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter Cornwall Campus, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9EZ, U.K
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bosse M, Lopes MS, Madsen O, Megens HJ, Crooijmans RPMA, Frantz LAF, Harlizius B, Bastiaansen JWM, Groenen MAM. Artificial selection on introduced Asian haplotypes shaped the genetic architecture in European commercial pigs. Proc Biol Sci 2017; 282:20152019. [PMID: 26702043 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2015.2019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Early pig farmers in Europe imported Asian pigs to cross with their local breeds in order to improve traits of commercial interest. Current genomics techniques enabled genome-wide identification of these Asian introgressed haplotypes in modern European pig breeds. We propose that the Asian variants are still present because they affect phenotypes that were important for ancient traditional, as well as recent, commercial pig breeding. Genome-wide introgression levels were only weakly correlated with gene content and recombination frequency. However, regions with an excess or absence of Asian haplotypes (AS) contained genes that were previously identified as phenotypically important such as FASN, ME1, and KIT. Therefore, the Asian alleles are thought to have an effect on phenotypes that were historically under selection. We aimed to estimate the effect of AS in introgressed regions in Large White pigs on the traits of backfat (BF) and litter size. The majority of regions we tested that retained Asian deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) showed significantly increased BF from the Asian alleles. Our results suggest that the introgression in Large White pigs has been strongly determined by the selective pressure acting upon the introgressed AS. We therefore conclude that human-driven hybridization and selection contributed to the genomic architecture of these commercial pigs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mirte Bosse
- Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, Wageningen 6708WD, The Netherlands
| | - Marcos S Lopes
- Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, Wageningen 6708WD, The Netherlands Topigs Norsvin Research Center, Beuningen 6640AA, The Netherlands
| | - Ole Madsen
- Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, Wageningen 6708WD, The Netherlands
| | - Hendrik-Jan Megens
- Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, Wageningen 6708WD, The Netherlands
| | | | - Laurent A F Frantz
- Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, Wageningen 6708WD, The Netherlands
| | | | - John W M Bastiaansen
- Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, Wageningen 6708WD, The Netherlands
| | - Martien A M Groenen
- Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, Wageningen 6708WD, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|