Thirty years after Brambell: whither animal welfare science?

It has been just over 30 years since the Brambell Committee issued its clarion call for research on the welfare of animals used in agriculture. What progress has farm animal welfare science made in those 30 years, and what challenges will it face in the next 30? In this article, I discuss the ways in which the Brambell report, with its emphasis on behavioral needs and suffering, both propelled and constrained the development of animal welfare science. The role that economic factors play and the ways in which they have imposed other kinds of constraints on scientists working with farm animals are also mentioned. Despite these constraints, animal welfare science has contributed to a number of significant improvements in the welfare of farm animals. There is, however, a growing sense that animal welfare science has reached an impasse and that ethical and scientific questions about animal welfare have become hopelessly entangled. In this context, I address what I view to be the principal challenge facing farm animal welfare science, namely to move the issue of beyond suffering to an evaluation of broader quality-of-life questions and their application to improvements in welfare.     

In pursuit of peak animal welfare; the need to prioritize the meaningful over the measurable

Despite the diversity of animal welfare definitions, most recognise the centrality of the feelings of animals which are currently impossible to measure directly. As a result, animal welfare assessment is heavily reliant upon the indirect measurement of factors that either affect what animals feel, or are effected by how they feel. Physiological and health orientated measures have emerged as popular metrics for assessing welfare because they are quantifiable, can effect and be affected by how animals feel and have merits regardless of their relationship to the feelings of animals. However, their popularity in animal welfare assessment has led to them having a disproportionate influence on animal management to the detriment of animal welfare in numerous instances. Here, the case is made that a tension exists between management that prioritizes aspects of care reflecting popular animal welfare metrics such as those relating to physical health, and management that emphasizes psychological wellbeing. By re‐examining the relative merits of physical and psychological priorities in animal management, an alternate animal welfare paradigm emerges less tied to traditional welfare metrics. This paradigm theorizes about the possibility for an optimal animal welfare state to exist where managed animal populations provided essential psychological outlets but protected from key physical stressors routinely experienced in the wild, might experience higher levels of welfare than wild populations would routinely experience. The proposition that optimal animal welfare could theoretically be achieved in well managed and well designed captive environments challenges a widely held ethical perspective that captivity is inherently bad for animal welfare.     

The Science of Animal Suffering

Can suffering in non‐human animals be studied scientifically? Apart from verbal reports of subjective feelings, which are uniquely human, I argue that it is possible to study the negative emotions we refer to as suffering by the same methods we use in ourselves. In particular, by asking animals what they find positively and negatively reinforcing (what they want and do not want), we can define positive and negative emotional states. Such emotional states may or may not be accompanied by subjective feelings but fortunately it is not necessary to solve the problem of consciousness to construct a scientific study of suffering and welfare. Improvements in animal welfare can be based on the answers to two questions: Q1: Will it improve animal health? and Q2: Will it give the animals something they want? This apparently simple formulation has the advantage of capturing what most people mean by ‘improving welfare’ and so halting a potentially dangerous split between scientific and non‐scientific definitions of welfare. It can also be used to validate other controversial approaches to welfare such as naturalness, stereotypies, physiological and biochemical measures. Health and what animals want are thus not just two of many measures of welfare. They provide the definition of welfare against which others can be validated. They also tell us what research we have to do and how we can judge whether welfare of animals has been genuinely improved. What is important, however, is for this research to be done in situ so that it is directly applicable to the real world of farming, the sea or an animal’s wild habitat. It is here that ethology can make major contributions.     

Exploring Children’s Perspectives on the Welfare Needs of Pet Animals

Children are increasingly viewed as important recipients of educational interventions to improve animal welfare, yet research examining their perspectives is lacking, particularly within the UK. Helping children to care appropriately for animals depends, not least, on an ability to understand the needs of different species and correctly identify cues given by the animal that indicate its welfare state. This study began to explore: (a) children’s perceptions of welfare needs, focusing on four common pet animals; (b) influences on the development of knowledge; (c) beliefs about whether or not (all) animals are sentient, and (d) their confidence in identifying when their own pets are in need. Fourteen focus groups were carried out with 53 children aged 7 to 13 years. Findings highlighted an affirmative response that animals have feelings (dogs especially), albeit with doubts about this applying universally. There was wide variation in children’s knowledge of welfare needs, even among owners of the animal in question. Conversely, some children lacked confidence in spite of the extensive knowledge they had developed through direct experience. An important finding was a perceived difficulty in identifying the needs of particular species or specific types of need in their own pets. Fitting well with a recent emphasis on “positive welfare,” children felt that many animals need demonstrative love and attention, especially cats and dogs. While there is clearly scope for educating children about common needs and cues that indicate animals’ welfare state, other areas pose a greater challenge. Emotional connection seems important in the development of extensive knowledge and concern for welfare. Accordingly, animals that do not possess the kind of behavioral repertoire that is easy to interpret or allows for a perceived sense of reciprocity are possibly at risk of negative welfare experiences.     

Infrared thermal imaging associated with pain in laboratory animals

The science of animal welfare has evolved over the years, and recent scientific advances have enhanced our comprehension of the neurological, physiological, and ethological mechanisms of diverse animal species. Currently, the study of the affective states (emotions) of nonhuman animals is attracting great scientific interest focused primarily on negative experiences such as pain, fear, and suffering, which animals experience in different stages of their lives or during scientific research. Studies underway today seek to establish methods of evaluation that can accurately measure pain and then develop effective treatments for it, because the techniques available up to now are not sufficiently precise. One innovative technology that has recently been incorporated into veterinary medicine for the specific purpose of studying pain in animals is called infrared thermography (IRT), a technique that works by detecting and measuring levels of thermal radiation at different points on the body’s surface with high sensitivity. Changes in IRT images are associated mainly with blood perfusion, which is modulated by the mechanisms of vasodilatation and vasoconstriction. IRT is an efficient, noninvasive method for evaluating and controlling pain, two critical aspects of animal welfare in biomedical research. The aim of the present review is to compile and analyze studies of infrared thermographic changes associated with pain in laboratory research involving animals.     

Welfare of sheep: Providing for welfare in an extensive environment

As a species traditionally managed extensively, at least for some of the year, sheep have received relatively little attention from a welfare perspective. Although extensively managed animals have greater behavioural freedom than those managed intensively, they are still vulnerable to other welfare challenges. Welfare can be considered from the perspective of the animals biological functioning, the naturalness of the way in which they are kept, or their feelings (negative or positive). These different domains can be integrated by considering the animal (and the adaptations it possesses) and the environment (made up of the challenges the animal experiences). In this schema, the extensively managed animal may experience poor welfare if the environmental challenges overwhelm its evolved coping strategies (for example, in high temperatures if behavioural and physiological adaptations cannot dissipate heat sufficiently) or if it has adaptations (such as behavioural anti-predator responses) that are no longer required. To assess welfare of sheep, therefore, we need to know when the animal may begin to suffer if its adaptations do not meet the challenges presented by the environment or when the cost of meeting those challenges is too great. In addition, the adaptations the sheep possess will affect how well it copes, e.g. breed differences in maternal behaviour and responses to predators will influence lamb survival and predation risk in extensive environments, respectively. How well the extensive environment can meet the behavioural needs of sheep has never been tested. However, consideration of the behaviour and habitat of wild sheep suggests that some preferred environmental features, such as escape terrain or specific birth sites, may not be present in farmed environments. How this affects sheep welfare is still to be determined. Sheep welfare is also affected by the quality of the stockperson caring for them. Interactions with people for extensively managed sheep are infrequent, but nearly always aversive, and whether the nature of interactions can be affected by stockperson attitude and behaviour, as seen in intensively managed species, remains to be seen. There is evidence, however, that farmers may under-estimate the negative impact that themselves and their sheepdogs can have on their sheep. Farmer attitude can also affect management decisions which may have an indirect impact on the welfare of their sheep. For example, farmer attitudes towards lameness are related to treatment decisions. The extensive environment thus provides particular challenges to welfare that differ markedly from those in intensive systems, and still need further investigation.     

Ecology and welfare of aquatic animals in wild capture fisheries

The expansion of commercial aquaculture production has raised awareness of issues relating to the welfare of aquatic animals. The “Five Freedoms” approach to animal welfare was originally devised for farmed terrestrial animals, and has been applied in some countries to aquatic animals reared in aquaculture due to several commonalities inherent within food production systems. There are now moves towards assessing and addressing aquatic animal welfare issues that may arise in wild capture fisheries. However, all “five freedoms” are regularly contradicted in the natural environment, meaning this concept is inappropriate when considering the welfare of aquatic animals in their natural environments. The feelings-based approach to welfare relies on a suffering centered view that, when applied to the natural aquatic environment, requires use of value judgements, cannot encompass scientific uncertainty regarding awareness in fish, elasmobranchs and invertebrates (despite their unquestioned welfare needs), and cannot resolve the welfare conundrums posed by predator–prey interactions or anthropocentrically mediated environmental degradation. For these reasons, the feelings-based approach to welfare is inadequate, inappropriate and must be rejected if applied to aquatic animals in wild capture fisheries, because it demonstrably ignores empirical evidence and several realities apparent within the natural aquatic environment. Furthermore, application of the feelings-based approach is counterproductive as it can alienate key fisheries stakeholders, many of whom are working to address environmental issues of critical importance to the welfare, management and conservation of aquatic animal populations in their natural environment. In contrast, the function-based and nature-based approaches for defining animal welfare appear appropriate for application to the broad range of welfare issues (including emerging environmental issues such as endocrine disruption) that affect aquatic animals in their natural environment, without the need to selectively ignore groups such as elasmobranchs and invertebrates. We consider that the welfare needs of aquatic animals are inextricably entwined with the need for conservation of their populations, communities and their environment, an approach that is entirely consistent with the concept of ecosystem-based management.     

Zoo Animal Welfare: The Human Dimension

ABSTRACT

Standards and policies intended to safeguard nonhuman animal welfare, whether in zoos, farms, or laboratories, have tended to emphasize features of the physical environment. However, research has now made it clear that very different welfare outcomes are commonly seen in facilities using similar environments or conforming to the same animal welfare requirements. This wide variation is almost certainly due, at least in part, to the important effects of the actions of animal care staff on animal welfare. Drawing mostly on the farm animal literature, we propose that this “human dimension” of animal welfare involves seven components: (1) positive human–animal interaction, (2) consistency and familiarity of keepers, (3) treating animals as individuals and taking account of their personalities, (4) the attitudes and personalities of keepers, (5) the keepers’ knowledge and experience, (6) the keepers’ own well-being, and (7) the influence of facility design on how keepers and others interact with the animals. We suggest that attention to these human factors provides major scope for improving the welfare of animals in zoos.     

What Is the Future for Zoos and Aquariums?

ABSTRACT

Animal welfare concerns have plagued the professional zoo and aquarium field for decades. Societal differences remain concerning the well-being of animals, but it appears a shift is emerging. Scientific studies of animal welfare have dramatically increased, establishing that many previous concerns were not misguided public empathy or anthropomorphism. As a result, both zoo and aquarium animal welfare policy and science are now at the center of attention within the world’s professional zoos and aquariums. It is now possible to view a future that embraces the well-being of individual captive exotic animals, as well as that of their species, and one in which professional zoos and aquariums are dedicated equally to advancing both. Though the ethics of keeping exotic animals and animals from the wild in captivity are still a contentious subject both outside and even within the profession, this study argues. We argue that this path forward will substantially improve most zoo and aquarium animals' welfare and could significantly reduce societal concerns. If animal welfare science and policy are strongly rooted in compassion and embedded in robust accreditation systems, the basic zoo/aquarium paradigm will move toward a more thoughtful approach to the interface between visitors and animals. It starts with a fundamental commitment to the welfare of individual animals.     

Research with animals: requirement, responsibility, welfare

Recognition of unacceptable cruelty to animals in pasttimes such as bull-baiting, dates in Britain from the early 19th century. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded in 1824. Several bills to curb cruelty were discussed in Parliament, and the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle Act was passed in 1822. Other Acts have followed over the years. Cruelty in the form of painful scientific experiments, including dissection of living, conscious animals, vivisection, was proscribed by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. That Act required anyone wishing to experiment with animals to obtain a licence from the Secretary of State. Conditions for issue of licences were strict and remain so to this day. The Act is still valid, and is enforced by the Home Office, with its medical and veterinary Inspectors. The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 allows experiments on animals under strictly controlled conditions. Experiments must have the clear objective of improving the welfare of man and/or animals. Benefits from experiments carried out under the Act have been enormous, covering every aspect of diagnosis, treatment, and prophylaxis in human and veterinary medicine. Coincidentally, the welfare of laboratory animals has also been greatly improved. There has always been some opposition to the use of animals in biomedical research. The subject is emotive but, by and large, discussion has been rational and within the law. In recent years, however, the morality of using experimental animals has been examined more closely. The possibility of replacing them by alternative methods has been investigated. Where these alternatives are applicable, they are used and further research on them continues. The questioning of animal experiments has emphasized the need to look constantly at animal welfare to ensure humane treatment of all animals, especially those restricted in a laboratory or on a farm. Attention has been drawn in this work to our existing laws protecting animals, but new legislation is being demanded, not only by some lay welfare groups but also by scientists. Hence, it has become very important to discuss various ways of ensuring animal welfare, including by legislation, especially with those knowledgeable in laboratory animal science and animal experiments.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Cognitive ability and sentience: which aquatic animals should be protected?

It is of scientific and practical interest to consider the levels of cognitive ability in animals, which animals are sentient, which animals have feelings such as pain and which animals should be protected. A sentient being is one that has some ability to evaluate the actions of others in relation to itself and third parties, to remember some of its own actions and their consequences, to assess risk, to have some feelings and to have some degree of awareness. These abilities can be taken into account when evaluating welfare. There is evidence from some species of fish, cephalopods and decapod crustaceans of substantial perceptual ability, pain and adrenal systems, emotional responses, long- and short-term memory, complex cognition, individual differences, deception, tool use, and social learning. The case for protecting these animals would appear to be substantial. A range of causes of poor welfare in farmed aquatic animals is summarised.     

宠物的福利和管理

＂家庭动物＂或＂伴侣动物＂的提法较＂宠物＂而言,更为确切并规范。伴侣动物往往因为种种原因成为城镇的流浪动物,在一定程度上,已经成为社会问题。遗弃宠物的原因尽管多种多样,深层次原因主要还是伦理道德的缺失。流浪动物日益泛滥,正在拷问人类的精神文明,有必要引起全社会的关注。动物福利在当今社会已不仅仅是概念化的一般性号召,一些发达国家出版的动物法典对犬、猫的福利有专题阐述。法典不仅对伴侣动物的各种福利条件作了具体规定,同时还提出了最低标准和最佳方案。本文以犬的食物饲喂、饮水及犬舍的要求为例,逐一介绍。     

REHABILITATION AND RELEASE OF MARINE MAMMALS IN THE UNITED STATES: RISKS AND BENEFITS

Rehabilitation of stranded marine mammals elicits polarized attitudes: initially done alongside display collections, but release of rehabilitated animals has become more common. Justifications include animal welfare, management of beach use conflict, research, conservation, and public education. Rehabilitation cost and risks have been identified that vary in degree supported by data rather than perception. These include conflict with fisheries for resources, ignorance of recipient population ecology, poor understanding of long-term survival, support of the genetically not-so-fit, introduction of novel or antibiotic-resistant pathogens, harm to human health, and cost. Thus facilities must balance their welfare appeal against public education, habitat restoration, human impact reduction, and other conservation activities. Benefits to rehabilitating marine mammals are the opportunity to support the welfare of disabled animals and to publish good science and so advance our understanding of wild populations. In specific cases, the status of a population may make conservation the main reason for rehabilitation. These three reasons for rehabilitation lead to contrasting, and sometimes conflicting, management needs. We therefore outline a decision tree for rehabilitation managers using criteria for each management decision, based on welfare, logistics, conservation, research, and funding to define limits on the number of animals released to the wild.     

Vibration and Animal Communication: A Review

Vibration through the substrate has likely been important toanimals as a channel of communication for millions of years,but our awareness of vibration as biologically relevant informationhas a history of only the last 30 yr. Morphologists know thatthe jaw mechanism of early amphibians allowed them to perceivevibration through the substrate as their large heads lay onthe ground. Although the exact mechanism of vibration productionand the precise nature of the wave produced are not always understood,recent technical advances have given answers to increasinglysophisticated questions about how animals send and receive signalsthrough the substrate. Some of us have been forced to explorethe use of vibration when all other attempts to manipulate animalsin the field have failed, while others began to think aboutvibration to explain some of the puzzling behaviors of speciesthey were studying in other contexts. It has thus become clearthat the use of vibration in animal communication is much morewidespread than previously thought. We now know that vibrationprovides information used in predator-prey interactions, recruitmentto food, mate choice, intrasexual competition and maternal/broodsocial interactions in a range of animals from insects to elephants.     

Affective responses in tamarins elicited by species-specific music

Theories of music evolution agree that human music has an affective influence on listeners. Tests of non-humans provided little evidence of preferences for human music. However, prosodic features of speech (‘motherese’) influence affective behaviour of non-verbal infants as well as domestic animals, suggesting that features of music can influence the behaviour of non-human species. We incorporated acoustical characteristics of tamarin affiliation vocalizations and tamarin threat vocalizations into corresponding pieces of music. We compared music composed for tamarins with that composed for humans. Tamarins were generally indifferent to playbacks of human music, but responded with increased arousal to tamarin threat vocalization based music, and with decreased activity and increased calm behaviour to tamarin affective vocalization based music. Affective components in human music may have evolutionary origins in the structure of calls of non-human animals. In addition, animal signals may have evolved to manage the behaviour of listeners by influencing their affective state.     

Factors affecting the Human Attribution of Emotions toward Animals

ABSTRACT

Attribution of emotions to animals can affect human–animal interactions and dictate animal welfare laws. However, little is known about the factors that influence these attributions. We investigated the effect of belief in animal mind, pet ownership, emotional intelligence, eating orientation, and gender on the attribution of different emotions to a variety of species, from different taxonomic classes, considered as Pet, Use (e.g., used for food, experimentation), or Pest animals. Three hundred and forty-seven participants, aged between 16 and 65 years, completed a questionnaire that measured their belief in the capacity for animals to experience seven primary and secondary emotions. The results showed that attribution of emotions to animals is inconsistent. The ambiguity appears to hinge, in part, upon an animal's functional category and their perceived place in the commonly supposed, though inaccurate, linear hierarchy of species. Nonetheless, the wide range of emotions that were attributed to all species highlights the complex and potentially disorganized thoughts that humans have concerning animals. Belief in animal mind was found to be the strongest and only predictor of emotion attribution to animals in general, but is probably because both are part of the same underlying construct. Ownership of some species—rabbits, horses, rodents and birds—mediated the emotions attributed to that particular species. We conclude that ambiguous attitudes influence the standards of welfare for animals used by humans and that the dichotomous attitudes permit exploitation and welfare violations against animals. Greater understanding of emotion attribution has the potential to improve humane education methods, and suggestions for future research are made.     

Animal Welfare in Nepal

The small densely populated country of Nepal rises from just above sea level to more than 8800 m and encompasses many agro-ecological zones. Rich in both nature and culture, livestock are integral to household and national economies. Most Nepalese consider the cow sacred, and slaughter is forbidden. Other nonhuman animals are less esteemed, slaughter is not proscribed, and many are sacrificed during religious festivals. Limited financial and material resources, inadequate feed supplies, poor access to veterinary services, absence of appropriate legislation, and ignoring the needs of livestock as sentient beings can compromise welfare and lead to inhumane treatment. This article reviews the welfare status of various groups (food-producing stock, work animals, street dogs, experimental animals, and elephants in captivity). Several animal welfare charities are represented. Suggestions for improved welfare are discussed, but the prognosis is not encouraging especially in view of the widespread struggle and people’s own struggle for survival.     

Interactions between parasite and vector control, animal productivity and rural welfare

These fundamental economic pressures coupled with concern for the environment and for the welfare of animals and, of course, for the welfare of humans, lead us to the fundamental conclusion that the goal of livestock production must be optimisation of inputs and outputs to satisfy the market needs. Standards will have to be set for welfare, land use patterns will have to be modified for social as well as economic reasons, and these will lead to the selection of health and production policies which optimise the long term efficiency of animal use.As we have seen, arthropods and the diseases they carry have profound impact on the efficiency of production and constrain the use of land in many areas where there are deficits of food. Consequently, we have to integrate control policies for these problems into a more orderly process of livestock development. Since we have recognised and accepted that a different series of factors intervene in different regions within countries, we must also accept that control and eradication policies will differ from area to area and from time to time. Parasite control has to be slotted into the order of priorities at different points and at different levels of intensity as the development process continues. Economic and social analysis, with the help of modelling, can provide guidance on the changes that may be needed but it is imperative that they be complemented by more effective recording and monitoring schemes. These schemes must cover animal productivity, and the full mix of factors which constrain efficient animal use. Fortunately, we now understand how to do all this, at a cost which is sustainable by any and every country.     

Editor's introduction to the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science

Animal welfare names a science in which investigators ask the general question: What are the capacities, sensibilities, needs, and interests of animals as they relate to their welfare? The objects of study in this emerging field are exclusively animals other than humans. Numerous contexts give rise to this interest in nonhuman animal welfare: The intensification of the use of animals since World War II, particularly on the farm and in the laboratory. The development of moral philosophies that establish nonhuman animals as objects of moral consideration. The advances in science in fields that have added to our understanding of animals, such as cognitive ethology. Advances in technology that give us more direct access to human physiology and psychology and undercut the tradition of using animal models. The success of the contemporary animal rights movement in placing the issue of the treatment of animals before the public.