Practical strategies to assess (and improve) welfare.

Animal welfare is at the epicenter of values-based and science-based reasoning. A question which must be posed is "Do scientific professionals consider animal welfare an established scientific field?" In many areas of animal production and research, the answer is a resounding yes. However, it must be established in all areas of science involving animals, and it must be maintained as a scientific field. To do so, we must be able to show that animal welfare can be measured and assessed using both subjective and objective measures. Animal welfare can be measured on a day-to-day basis by the producers and veterinarian who work directly with the animals, using outcome-based measures. When outcome based measures are used, we can assess why certain management practices are put into place, and what impact those practices are making on production and welfare. According to the OIE (2008), the criteria for measurement of animal welfare include cattle behavior, morbidity rates, mortality rates, changes in weight and body condition, reproductive efficiency, physical appearance, handling responses, and com¬ plications due to routine procedure management. By using these and other outcome-based measures, animal welfare will become an established scientific field in which observations can be measured and recorded so that management changes and improvements can be implemented to maintain and improve welfare on production units.

The study of animal welfare is essential for undergraduates seeking to pursue careers with animals, yet pedagogical research on this topic is limited. While animal welfare is an accepted (albeit relatively new) scientific discipline, student views on animal welfare as a science require further exploration. This article reports the findings from a mixed-methods action research project undertaken at Harper Adams University (HAU) in the UK. Undergraduate student questionnaire responses (n = 123) revealed key attitudinal constructs related to animal welfare, and relationships to demographic factors. Students overwhelmingly defined animal welfare in terms of health; however, rural (compared to urban) students more often perceived ‘naturalness’ as important in the maintenance of good welfare. Notions of what constitutes good animal welfare appeared to be mediated by prospective career paths. For instance, veterinary nursing students were more likely to define animal welfare based upon resource-based measures and appropriate treatment of animals, which may link to their future role in educating clients on these topics. Finally, student attitudes toward animal welfare science revealed deeper epistemological views on the meaning of ‘science’. That is, natural sciences were seen as trustworthy; students invoked the Scientific Method and disciplines such as neurobiology to bring credence to animal welfare science. Conversely, aspects of animal welfare addressed by the social sciences were dismissed as unscientific. Based on these results, recommendations for action are proposed, which include further research into the attitudes of educators, strategies for engaging with dissatisfied student groups, and elevating the social sciences within animal welfare curricula.

There is an evident difference in the implementation level of animal welfare (AW) across the societies and countries worldwide. Although multiple factors contribute to these differences, we can summarize them into a three pillar concept, the three aspects of applied farm AW. The objective of this review is to analyse applied AW on farms from the ethical, economic and animal health aspects. Modern ethics emphasizes biocentrism against anthropocentrism, the modern ethical concept of bioethics. Additionally, beside the differences among the major ethical concepts, there is a consensus that AW deserves a respectful place. An animal?s economic value is not only limited by its material value determined by the inputs and outputs. Thus, rather than being simply considered as a ?stock-good? machine, animals are valued as a sentient beings with ?added value?, which has an impact on the final product price. Animal health and welfare are interconnected and are based on the impact of AW on health and vice versa. The implementation of higher welfare standards to farm animals is only possible if AW is accepted as part of the health of the animal. The applicability of this concept is presented through the European Union AW legislation, which is based on public opinion, economy and animal health. As a conclusion, applied AW is possible only at the level at which the three pillars are equally balanced, and the initiatives in this field should work and be focused on ethics, economics and health.

Assessing the welfare of zoo-housed great apes is essential to ensure high standards of care, maintain zoos' ethical and educational credibility, and support their conservation roles. However, welfare assessment remains challenging due to the complex cognitive, social, and behavioural needs of great apes and the limitations of existing evaluation methods. Many zoos rely on resource-based measures, which are easy to collect but lack the specificity needed to assess welfare accurately. In this study, we developed and tested a new standardized, evidence-based approach that integrated resource-based data with ecological and behavioural insights. This Ape Welfare Assessment, Resources and Ecology (AWARE) Tool was developed through collaboration with the Great Ape Welfare group (GAWg) and aimed to: (1) collect a holistic suite of resource and husbandry data that measures the constraints on the apes opportunities to express key naturalistic behaviours, (2) contextualize results within species-specific research on wild and captive great ape behavioural ecology and welfare, and (3) extend beyond existing zoo accreditation standards to support zoos aspirations for higher levels of welfare. Using data from zoo-housed chimpanzees, we tested whether this approach enhanced the validity of resource-based welfare assessments. Results demonstrate that the approach strengthens welfare evaluations and provides a more nuanced understanding of captive great ape wellbeing. We also propose a new validation framework for holistic welfare assessment tools such as this, where validating all individual indicators is neither feasible nor informative. Ultimately, we aim for the AWARE Tool to serve as a web-based resource for independent zoo use and formal welfare assessments. Future research will expand its application to gorillas and orangutans. This study represents a major leap towards establishing robust, species-informed and validated welfare assessment methodologies for zoo-housed great apes.

Review: How do we measure welfare on farm? Indicators, proxies and gold standards.

On-farm monitoring of animal welfare is an important, present-day objective in animal welfare science. Scientists tend to focus exclusively on animal-based parameters, possibly because using environment-based parameters could be begging the question why welfare has been affected and because animal-based parameters would be better indicators of welfare. However, selection of even the best animal-based parameters that have conventionally been used in experiments could have unacceptable consequences. Systems that are generally considered to be poor welfare systems may generate unacceptably high welfare scores. The monitoring systems could fail to match basic intuitions in society and the scientific community. In order to avoid this problem, available knowledge, eg about animal motivation derived from consumer demand studies and knowledge about the natural behaviour of the animals, should be used explicitly in welfare assessment. This requires making welfare inferences from knowledge about the relationships between environment-based and animal-based parameters using standard operating procedures. The on-farm measurement of animal-based parameters may be regarded as the measurement of critical control points, which must be compared and reconciled with predictions based on available scientific knowledge. For this purpose the formalisation of welfare assessment should be developed further.

Animal welfare is increasingly important for the Australian livestock industries, to maintain social licence to practice as well as ensuring market share overseas. Improvement of animal welfare in the livestock industries requires several important key steps. Paramount among these, objective measures are needed for welfare assessment that will enable comparison and contrast of welfare implications of husbandry procedures or housing options. Such measures need to be versatile (can be applied under a wide range of on- and off-farm situations), relevant (reveal aspects of the animal’s affective or physiological state that is relevant to their welfare), reliable (can be repeated with confidence in the results), relatively economic to apply, and they need to have broad acceptance by all stakeholders. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA) is an integrated measure that characterises behaviour as a dynamic, expressive body language. QBA is a versatile tool requiring little specialist equipment suiting application to in situ assessments that enables comparative, hypothesis-driven evaluation of various industry-relevant practices. QBA is being increasingly used as part of animal welfare assessments in Europe, and although most other welfare assessment methods record ‘problems’ (e.g. lameness, injury scores, and so on), QBA can capture positive aspects of animal welfare (e.g. positively engaged with their environment, playfulness). In this viewpoint, we review the outcomes of recent QBA studies and discuss the potential application of QBA, in combination with other methods, as a welfare assessment tool for the Australian livestock industries.

The University of Guelph is internationally recognized as a leader in animal welfare and is home to the Colonel K.L. Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare and to numerous faculty with expertise in the discipline. However, while animal welfare receives significant attention within the agricultural college, its didactic teaching within the veterinary curriculum has been limited. Veterinary students receive four hours of instruction in animal ethics and apply their knowledge within the communication lectures and laboratories, totaling 11-15 hrs. Compulsory coursework explicitly addressing factual components of animal welfare science, welfare assessment, and associated animal-related policy constitute only 12 hrs throughout the four-year Doctor of Veterinary Medicine curriculum. However, an elective final-year clinical rotation and a graduate course specific to animal welfare were offered for the first time in 2004/2005. Student interest in animal welfare is evident through their participation in summer research projects in animal welfare, an animal welfare mentor group, and a student-run animal welfare club that organizes an Animal Welfare Forum each October. Veterinarians have important contributions to make in decision making about animal welfare issues, at clinician and policy levels. Although motivated individuals can seek out opportunities to expand their knowledge of animal welfare, a compulsory senior-level course in animal welfare is needed to develop the necessary depth of understanding of this discipline if veterinarians, as a profession, are to meet society's expectations about animal welfare.

Simple SummaryMonitoring animal welfare is a key element of conducting research involving animals. The aim of this project was to co-create animal welfare monitoring systems that could contribute to best practice husbandry standards of farm animals in a real animal research setting. Researchers worked with nine staff to co-design six bespoke welfare assessment protocols to be conducted in addition to legally required welfare monitoring for adult cattle, calves, sheep, pigs, and goats in specific experimental environments that included both positive and negative welfare elements. Four protocols were subsequently applied with variable frequency by three staff to cattle, goats, and two pig populations. Assessments were all observational and included behavioural and physical condition data. Two staff provided feedback on their views of the process. A key finding was that with facilitation, staff could generate protocols that included elements designed to encourage or evaluate interventions to promote positive emotions. However, data collection was sporadic, and although the staff who provided feedback reported that they valued the process highly, they noted that the primary challenge was finding the time to conduct the additional assessments. We therefore conclude that sustained support is likely to be required to maximise the benefits for the animals and staff of developing and conducting additional voluntary welfare monitoring of farm animals.The aim of this project was to co-create an animal welfare monitoring system that incorporated both positive and negative welfare measures that would contribute to best practice husbandry standards of farm animals in a real animal research setting. Researchers worked with nine staff to co-design six bespoke welfare assessment protocols to be conducted in addition to legally required welfare monitoring for adult cattle, calves, sheep, pigs, and goats in specific experimental environments. Four protocols were subsequently applied with variable frequency by three staff to cattle, goats, and two pig populations. Assessments were all observational, and included behavioural scan sampling, Qualitative Behaviour Assessment scores, visual analogue mood scores, and physical condition data. Two staff provided feedback on their views of the process. A key finding was that with facilitation, staff could generate protocols that included elements designed to encourage or evaluate interventions to promote positive emotions. However, data collection was sporadic, and although the staff who provided feedback reported that they valued the process highly, they noted that the primary challenge was finding the time to conduct the assessments. We therefore conclude that sustained support is likely to be required to maximise the benefits for the animals and staff of developing and conducting voluntary welfare monitoring of farm animals.

Farm animal welfare has now been studied, within a scientific framework, for several decades. The framework does not include ethical issues, but unless measurements of animal welfare at farm level are embedded in an ethical context, there is a danger that these measurements will not be properly utilised. This paper considers the relationship between ethical questions and animal welfare assessment. In it, the following four key ethical questions are identified. What is the baseline standard for morally acceptable animal welfare? What is a good animal life? What farming purposes are legitimate? What kinds of compromise are acceptable in a less-than-perfect world? The authors suggest that animal welfare scientists need to reflect carefully on these questions if welfare assessments are to be properly interpreted and put to practical use. Such reflection will lead to a more transparent appreciation of the values underlying welfare assessment. In this way, it will both offer welfare scientists a greater awareness of their own value-assumptions and enable the same scientists to communicate effectively with the wider audience — farmers, consumers, pressure groups, policy-makers and so on — for which the results of animal welfare assessments are of concern.

Recent concerns over the welfare of elephants in UK zoos have implications for their future in captivity, and it is clear that improvements in welfare should be made. Evidence suggests that the knowledge of experienced stakeholders is vital to captive animal welfare assessment. However, there have been few attempts to consult with zoo personnel and other stakeholders on the assessment of elephant welfare, and much of their valuable knowledge of routine husbandry has not been captured in the published literature. As part of a research project commissioned by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, open response focus groups and workshop discussions were conducted with representatives from 15 UK elephant-holding facilities, and other experts in the welfare and behaviour of captive or free-ranging elephants. Participants described three broad categories of welfare indicators: behavioural, physical and physiological. Resources perceived to be of importance to elephants included aspects of the physical environment, such as feeding opportunities and appropriate substrate, and aspects of the social environment, including group size and relatedness. The data obtained during this study can be used to develop an elephant welfare assessment strategy, informed by the knowledge and expertise of experienced stakeholders, and for consideration of potential changes to guidelines for managing elephants in captivity. Our approach to capturing the views of those who work closely with captive species could be applied elsewhere, in order to draw upon the extensive knowledge of expert stakeholders and consider ways to improve the welfare of captive animals.

Simple SummaryThe 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.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.

It is commonly assumed that animals suffer if they cannot perform behaviours seen in wild conspecifics. Although comparisons with the behaviour of wild conspecifics are a popular method of assessing the welfare of captive animals, their validity has not been fully assessed. Homeostatic models of motivation suggest that many behaviours are stimulus driven rather than internally generated. Thus, it is possible that the non-performance of some wild-type behaviours does not necessarily compromise animal welfare, unless welfare is defined as being compromised by such non-performance. The flexibility of wild animal behaviour and the fact that animals free to perform the complete range of wild behaviours can suffer, must also put into the question the validity of such comparisons. Technical criticisms also arise when one considers the difficulty of constructing accurate and unbiased time budgets for wild animals. It is possible that the expressions of wild-type behaviours correlate with enhanced welfare, rather than cause enhanced welfare. Thus, if the consequences of behaviour are more important than the expression of behaviour itself, environmental enrichment does not necessarily need to rely upon the performance of wild-type behaviours for the improvement of animal welfare. Therefore, although behavioural comparisons with wild animals can be considered as potentially useful indicators of behavioural differences, they cannot always be relied upon to give an objective assessment of animal welfare. To make an assessment of welfare, behavioural comparisons with wild animals should be used in conjunction with other techniques to demonstrate that the consequences of non-performance of wild behaviours results in impoverished welfare.

Continued concern for animal welfare may be alleviated when welfare would be monitored on farms. Monitoring can be characterized as an information system where various stakeholders periodically exchange relevant information. Stakeholders include producers, consumers, retailers, the government, scientists, and others. Valuating animal welfare in the animal-product market chain is regarded as a key challenge to further improve the welfare of farm animals and information on the welfare of animals must, therefore, be assessed objectively, for instance, through monitoring. Interviews with Dutch stakeholder representatives were conducted to identify their perceptions about the monitoring of animal welfare. Stakeholder perceptions were characterized in relation to the specific perspectives of each stakeholder. While producers tend to perceive welfare from a production point of view, consumers will use visual images derived from traditional farming and from the animals’ natural environments. Scientists’ perceptions of animal welfare are affected by the need to measure welfare with quantifiable parameters. Retailers and governments (policy makers) have views of welfare that are derived from their relationships with producers, consumers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and scientists. All interviewed stakeholder representatives stated that animal welfare is important. They varied in the extent to which they weighted economic considerations relative to concern for the animals’ welfare. Many stakeholders emphasized the importance of communication in making a monitoring system work. Overall, the perspectives for the development of a sustainable monitoring system that substantially improves farm animal welfare were assessed as being poor in the short term. However, a reliable system could be initiated under certain conditions, such as integrated chains and with influential and motivated stakeholders. A scheme is described with attention points for the development of sustainable monitoring systems for farm animal welfare in the long term.

To date, husbandry categories are defined based on the human concept of animal needs, however, to objectively assess animal welfare in defined husbandry systems, animal-related indicators must be evaluated. Here, we studied the impact of differential housing conditions on factors of the insulin-like growth factor system (IGF-system) in mother sows either housed in a conventional husbandry system corresponding to the regulations of the German husbandry form 1, or in the associated ecological facility, corresponding to the German husbandry form 4/5. Utilizing a proprietary bioassay that determines the activity of the IGF system at the level of intracellular signal transduction, we revealed altered serum IGF bioactivities in differentially housed sows. Moreover, we present a comprehensive analysis of the individual factors of the IGF system in serum of pregnant and lactating sows to elucidate which of these are modified depending on the housing conditions. An unsupervised principal component analysis suggests that IGF system factors might distinguish sows based on their housing environment. These results imply that the IGF system provides a solid basis for the documentation and objective assessment of animal health and welfare. However, a robust biomarker system for animal welfare assessment will likely require a multifactorial and integrative approach.