Animal Welfare at the Group Level: More Than the Sum of Individual Welfare?

Currently assessment and management of animal welfare are based on the supposition that welfare status is something experienced identically by each individual animal when exposed to the same conditions. However, many authors argue that individual welfare cannot be seen as an ‘objective’ state, but is based on the animal’s own self-perception; such perception might vary significantly between individuals which appear to be exposed to exactly the same challenges. We argue that this has two implications: (1) actual perceived welfare status of individuals in a population may vary over a wide range even under identical environmental conditions; (2) animals that appear to an external observer to be in better or poorer welfare condition may all in fact perceive their own individual status as the same. This would imply that optimum welfare of a social group might be achieved in situations where individual group members differ markedly in apparent welfare status and perceive their own welfare as being optimal under differing circumstances. Welfare phenotypes may also vary along a continuum between self-regarding and other-regarding behaviour; a variety of situations exist where (social) individuals appear to invest in the welfare of other individuals instead of maximising their own welfare; in such a case it is necessary to re-evaluate individual welfare within the context of a social group and recognise that there may be consequences for the welfare of individuals, of decisions made at the group level or by other group members.     

Does the Animal Welfare Act apply to free-ranging animals?

Despite the long-standing role that institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) have played in reviewing and approving studies at academic institutions, compliance with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is not always complete for government natural resource agencies that use free-ranging animals in research and management studies. Even at universities, IACUCs face uncertainties about what activities are covered and about how to judge proposed research on free-ranging animals. One reason for much of the confusion is the AWA vaguely worded exemption for "field studies." In particular, fish are problematic because of the AWA exclusion of poikilothermic animals. However, most university IACUCs review studies on all animals, and the Interagency Research Animal Committee (IRAC) has published the "IRAC Principles," which extend coverage to all vertebrates used by federal researchers. Despite this extended coverage, many scientists working on wild animals continue to view compliance with the AWA with little enthusiasm. IACUCs, IACUC veterinarians, wildlife veterinarians, and fish and wildlife biologists must learn to work together to comply with the law and to protect the privilege of using free-ranging animals in research.     

Visitor Circulation and Nonhuman Animal Welfare: An Overlooked Variable?

This article investigates visitor circulation and behaviors within a gallery of primate exhibits in relation to their possible implications for nonhuman animal welfare. When entering a primate house, the majority of visitors (84%) turned right, a pattern upheld throughout all times of the day. These findings demonstrate the existence of the "right-turn" principle, a concept previously identified and investigated in the museum setting. The existence of this circulation pattern in zoos has important implications for the practical management of animal welfare issues because unbalanced or large numbers of visitors at specific enclosures could present a stressful influence. The "direction bias" could not be attributed to demographic or behavioral traits, therefore suggesting that the principle, like similar findings from museum research, generalizes across visitor populations and, therefore, zoos. A visitor sample at another exhibit (located outside the exhibit gallery) did not display a direction bias, suggesting that the marked circulation pattern may be specific to exhibit galleries. The article discusses the significance and consequences of visitor circulation with respect to visitor management and animal welfare.     

Does Accreditation by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) Ensure Greater Compliance With Animal Welfare Laws?

Accreditation of nonhuman animal research facilities by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) is widely considered the “gold standard” of commitment to the well being of nonhuman animals used in research. AAALAC-accredited facilities receive preferential treatment from funding agencies and are viewed favorably by the general public. Thus, it bears investigating how well these facilities comply with U.S. animal research regulations. In this study, the incidences of noncompliance with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) at AAALAC-accredited facilities were evaluated and compared to those at nonaccredited institutions during a period of 2 years. The analysis revealed that AAALAC-accredited facilities were frequently cited for AWA noncompliance items (NCIs). Controlling for the number of animals at each facility, AAALAC-accredited sites had significantly more AWA NCIs on average compared with nonaccredited sites. AAALAC-accredited sites also had more NCIs related to improper veterinary care, personnel qualifications, and animal husbandry. These results demonstrate that AAALAC accreditation does not improve compliance with regulations governing the treatment of animals in laboratories.     

Self-harm in laboratory-housed primates: where is the evidence that the Animal Welfare Act amendment has worked?

The 1985 amendment to the United States Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to promote psychological well being of primates in the laboratory represents an acknowledgment of an important welfare problem concerning nonhuman animals. How effective has this amendment been? Perhaps the best-known contributor to psychological distress in primates in the laboratory is nonsocial housing; yet, available analyses suggest that little progress has been made in avoiding single-caging of these animals. Another way to assess psychological well being is to examine rates of self-abusive behavior in laboratory primates. If the AWA has been effective, then post-AWA self-harm rates might be lower than pre-AWA rates. However, when we attempted to determine those rates from published studies, data were too sparse to allow a rigorous statistical analysis; of 139 studies reporting primate self-harming behavior, only 9 contained data allowing estimation of self-harming behavior rates. We conclude that the current system of laboratory animal care and record keeping is inadequate to properly assess AWA impacts on primate psychological well being and that more is required to ensure the psychological well being of primates.     

Animal Welfare Issues in the Poultry Industry: Is There a Lesson to Be Learned?

Many of the conditions in which poultry live and the procedures to which they are subjected compromise their welfare. This article describes these welfare problems in the hope that they may serve as warnings to the rest of animal agriculture, which then might take steps to avoid the same pitfalls. The article discusses poultry welfare problems under the headings of battery cages for laying hens, forced molting, disposal of spent laying hens, fast growth problems in meat poultry, catching and transportation, food restriction of broiler breeders, hyperaggressiveness in broiler breeder males, elective surgeries, and water-bath stunning.     

What Capabilities for the Animal?

In this essay, I defend a bi-constructivist approach to ethology—a constructivist ethology assuming that each animal adopts constructivist strategies. I put it in opposition to what I call a realist-Cartesian approach, which is currently the dominant approach to ethology and comparative psychology. The starting point of the bi-constructivist approach can be formulated as a shift from the classical Aristotelian question “What is an animal?” to the Spinozean question, which is much less classical but which seems to me to be much stronger: “What are the capacities of the animal?”. Is it possible to conceptualize an ethology which insists on interpretation and therefore on invention, innovation and creativity, rather than on causality, the monotony of behavioural routines, and/or genetic or environmental determination? Such an ethology would be based not on the fiction of an absent observer but on fully recognizing the necessity of an observer, who is effectively present in order to get an observation. A pluralistic ethology does not dissociate itself from the marginal epistemologies of practitioners like animal trainers, hunters, stockbreeders etc., or, moreover, non-western experts. An ethology of this kind is not clamped within the boundaries of purely academic epistemology, obsessed by demarcation lines between the human and the animal. My work on the bi-constructivist approach represents a contribution towards the elaboration of an authentically biosemiotic ethology, one which is significantly different from the mechanical ethology of today.     

The Customer Isn't Always Right—Conservation and Animal Welfare Implications of the Increasing Demand for Wildlife Tourism

Tourism accounts for 9% of global GDP and comprises 1.1 billion tourist arrivals per annum. Visits to wildlife tourist attractions (WTAs) may account for 20–40% of global tourism, but no studies have audited the diversity of WTAs and their impacts on the conservation status and welfare of subject animals. We scored these impacts for 24 types of WTA, visited by 3.6–6 million tourists per year, and compared our scores to tourists’ feedback on TripAdvisor. Six WTA types (impacting 1,500–13,000 individual animals) had net positive conservation/welfare impacts, but 14 (120,000–340,000 individuals) had negative conservation impacts and 18 (230,000–550,000 individuals) had negative welfare impacts. Despite these figures only 7.8% of all tourist feedback on these WTAs was negative due to conservation/welfare concerns. We demonstrate that WTAs have substantial negative effects that are unrecognised by the majority of tourists, suggesting an urgent need for tourist education and regulation of WTAs worldwide.     

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Chemical Testing for Decision-Support: How to Include Animal Welfare?

Toxicity testing for regulatory purposes raises the question of test selection for a particular endpoint. Given the public's concern for animal welfare, test selection is a multi-objective decision problem that requires balancing information outcome, animal welfare loss, and monetary testing costs. This paper demonstrates the applicability of cost-effectiveness analysis as a decision-support tool for test selection in a regulatory context such as, for example, the new European chemicals legislation (REACH). We distinguish different decision-making perspectives, in particular the regulator's and chemical industry's perspectives, and we discuss how cost-effectiveness analysis can be applied to test selection from both perspectives. Furthermore, we show how animal welfare goals can be included in cost-effectiveness analyses, and we provide a three-dimensional extension to the standard cost-effectiveness analysis if animal welfare loss cannot be valued in monetary terms. To illustrate how cost-effectiveness analysis works in different settings, we apply our model to a simple case of selecting short-term tests for mutagenicity. We demonstrate that including sufficiently high values for animal welfare induces cost-effective replacements of animal testing. Furthermore, we show that the regulator and chemical companies face different tradeoffs when selecting tests. This may lead to different choices of tests or testing systems.     

Animal phylogeny: back to the coelomata?

The relationship between vertebrates and the principal model invertebrates - fruitflies and nematodes - is unclear. A fly-nematode grouping was becoming widely accepted, but recent comparisons of their genomes argue against this and link flies with the vertebrates instead.     

Has the Child Welfare Profession Discovered Nepotistic Biases?

A major trend in foster care in developed countries over the past quarter century has been a shift toward placing children with “kin” rather than with unrelated foster parents. This change in practice is widely backed by legislation and is routinely justified as being in the best interests of the child. It is tempting to interpret this change as indicating that the child welfare profession has belatedly discovered that human social sentiments are nepotistic in their design, such that kin tend to be the most nurturant alloparents. Arguably, however, the change in practice has been driven by demographic, economic, and political forces rather than by discovery of its benefits. More and better research is needed before we can be sure that children have actually benefitted.     

Within and Beyond the Bounds of Creative Methods Is Creative Thinking Enough?

This article discusses creation and creative methods starting with the cognitive component of creation and ending with its ontological aspects. The main focus is on limitations of generally accepted approaches to the study of the creative act. It considers the role of the person performing an act of creation and disputes whether this concept is identical to that of the creative individual. It proposes methodological approaches to the further study of creativity as the integration of the "process of creation and the creative event."     

A Survey of Chinese Citizens’ Perceptions on Farm Animal Welfare

Farm animal welfare has been gradually recognized as an important issue in most parts of the world. In China, domestic animals were traditionally raised in backyard and treated as an important component of family wealth. Industrialization of animal production brings forth the farm animal welfare concerns recently in China, yet the modern concept of animal welfare has not been publicized and a comprehensive recognition on how consumers and farmers perceive animal welfare is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a survey on public opinions toward farm animal welfare in China, based on pigs (including sows, piglets, and fattening pigs), domestic fowls (including layers and broilers) and their products. From 6,006 effective questionnaires approximately two thirds of the respondents had never heard of ‘animal welfare’; 72.9% of the respondents claimed that, for the sake of animal derived food safety, human beings should improve the rearing conditions for pigs and domestic fowls; 65.8% of the respondents totally or partly agreed on establishing laws to improve animal welfare; more than half of the respondents were willing, or to some extent willing, to pay more for high-welfare animal products, whereas 45.5% of the respondents were not willing or reluctant to pay more. In summary, farm animal welfare is still in its early stage of development and more efforts are needed to improve the public conception to animal welfare in the process of establishing farm animal welfare standards and legislations in China.