Modelling Ex Situ Animal Behaviour and Communication

Communication and behaviour of animals living ex situ has been one of the major sources of knowledge about wild animals. Nevertheless, it is also acknowledged that depending on the environment that the animals inhabit (or are kept in), there are differences in their communication and behaviour. With some species (especially large mammals) it is difficult to reproduce their natural environment to an extent that excludes deviations from the behaviour and communication exhibited by animals living in situ. In zoological gardens, welfare measures are introduced in order to counteract the effects of the captive environment and to grant an individual’s good physical and psychological well-being. The relation between good welfare and species-specific communication and behaviour is discussed, and as a result, a general model of ex situ animal communication and behaviour is proposed. The suggested model is inclusive of differences between captive animals and free-ranging animals and serves to explain the welfare-related reasons underlying individual animal’s deviations from species-specific behaviour and communication.     

A concept of welfare based on reward evaluating mechanisms in the brain: anticipatory behaviour as an indicator for the state of reward systems

In this review we attempt to link the efficiency by which animals behave (economy of animal behaviour) to a neuronal substrate and subjective states to arrive at a definition of animal welfare which broadens the scope of its study. Welfare is defined as the balance between positive (reward, satisfaction) and negative (stress) experiences or affective states. The state of this balance may range from positive (good welfare) to negative (poor welfare). These affective states are momentary or transient states which occur against the background of and are integrated with the state of this balancing system. As will be argued the efficiency in behaviour requires that, for instance, satisfaction is like a moving target: reward provides the necessary feedback to guide behaviour; it is a not steady-state which can be maintained for long. This balancing system is reflected in the brain by the concerted action of opioid and mesolimbic dopaminergic systems. The state of this system reflects the coping capacity of the animal and is determined by previous events. In other words, this integrative approach of behavioural biology and neurobiology aims at understanding how the coping capacity of animals may be affected and measured. We argue that this balancing system underlies the economy of behaviour. Furthermore we argue that among other techniques anticipation in Pavlovian conditioning is an easy and useful tool to assess the state of this balancing system: for estimating the state of an animal in terms of welfare we focus on the conditions when an animal is facing a challenge.     

Animal rights activists' representations of animals and animal rights: An exploratory study

Abstract

During the last 30 years, supporters of the animal rights movement have questioned the use of animals for human benefit and have campaigned for improvements in their welfare. In the present study, activists' representations of animals and animal rights were investigated by interviewing 23 participants (from three animal welfare and animal rights organizations) during four focus-group discussions. Results show that the activists' representations were generated from the love/pain thema, which on the one hand showed the compassion and love the activists have for animals, and on the other hand the suffering that animals can endure. Moreover, differences were found in this study in the way that members of the three animal welfare and rights organizations constructed their views of animals. While members of two out of the three organizations aimed to protect abandoned animals, members of the Anti-Vivisection League faced the contradictions within the human–animal relationship and endorsed a more coherent approach to animals. These findings are interpreted in light of previous studies conducted on the animal rights movement and of recent developments in social representation theory.     

Sentient Nonpersons and the Disvalue of Death

Implicit in our everyday attitudes and practices is the assumption that death ordinarily harms a person who dies. A far more contested matter is whether death harms sentient individuals who are not persons, a category that includes many animals and some human beings. On the basis of the deprivation account of the harm of death, I argue that death harms sentient nonpersons (whenever their lives would be worth continuing). I next consider possible bases for the commonsense judgment that death ordinarily harms persons more than it harms sentient nonpersons. Contrary to what some philosophers believe, it is doubtful that the familiar resources of prudential value theory can vindicate this judgment. I show that the approach that at first glance seems most promising for supporting this judgment – namely, invoking an objective account of well‐being – faces substantial challenges, before arguing that McMahan's time‐relative interest account supplies the needed theoretical basis. I then go on to extract a significant practical implication of the first thesis, that death ordinarily harms sentient nonpersons: We should find a way to discontinue the routine killing of animal subjects following their use in experiments.     

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.     

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.     

Competing Conceptions of Animal Welfare and Their Ethical Implications for the Treatment of Non-Human Animals

Animal welfare has been conceptualized in such a way that the use of animals in science and for food seems justified. I argue that those who have done this have appropriated the concept of animal welfare, claiming to give a scientific account that is more objective than the “sentimental” account given by animal liberationists. This strategy seems to play a major role in supporting merely limited reform in the use of animals and seems to support the assumption that there are conditions under which animals may be raised and slaughtered for food that are ethically acceptable. Reformists do not need to make this assumption, but they tend to conceptualize animal welfare is such a way that death does not count as harmful to the interests of animals, nor prolonged life a benefit. In addition to this prudential value assumption, some members of this community have developed strategies for defending suitably reformed farming practices as ethical even granting that death and some other forms of constraints are harms. One such strategy is the fiction of a domestic contract. However, if one accepts the conceptualization of human welfare give by L. W. Sumner, and applies it to animals in the way that I think is justified, an accurate conceptualization of animal welfare has different implications for which uses of animals should be regarded as ethically acceptable. In this paper I give an historical and philosophical account of animal welfare conceptulization and use this account to argue that animal breeders, as custodians of the animals they breed, have the ethical responsibility to help their animal wards achieve as much autonomy as possible in choosing the form of life made available to them and to provide that life. Attempts to avoid these implications by alluding to a contract model of the relationship between custodians and their wards fail to relieve custodians of their ethical responsibilities of care.     

实验动物的环境与福利

实验动物在生物科学研究领域中的应用不断发展,其饲养环境和福利保障的问题已越来越被国际所关注。实验动物的环境与福利不仅是对动物本身的保护,更重要的是对动物试验结果的保证。本文详细论述了大环境（温度、湿度、气流等方面）及小环境（笼具、饲养密度、垫料）对实验动物福利的影响,通过总结国内外的研究概况,旨为我国改善和提高实验动物的福利提出一些思路。     

Insights into the concept of fish welfare

Fish welfare issues are predicated on understanding whether fish are sentient beings. Therefore, we analyzed the logic of the methodologies used for studying this attribute. We conclude that empirical science is unable to prove or to disprove that fish are sentient beings. Thus, we propose a combined ethical-scientific approach for considering fish as sentient beings. The most difficult ongoing question is to determine which conditions fish prefer. Approaches to assess fish preferences should be rigorously and cautiously employed. In light of these considerations, attempts to establish physiological standards for fish welfare are discouraged, and a preference-based definition of fish welfare is proposed.     

Sentience and sensation

When animals are used in a biomedical research activity that may result in more than mild or momentary pain or distress, humanity, federal regulations and common sense direct us to use the least sentient species that can fulfill the aims of the research. The use of a less-sentient species is in line with the concept of Replacement, one of the well-known 3Rs of laboratory animal use. But what is a less-sentient species? Is a chimpanzee less sentient than a human; is a dog less sentient than a chimpanzee; and is a mouse less sentient than a dog? Does 'less sentient' imply that a species is less able to experience pain, is less intelligent or has less self-awareness? This essay will explore some of the relationships between sentience, pain and vertebrate phylogeny.     

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.     

My pigs are ok,why change? – animal welfare accounts of pig farmers

Intensive pig production systems are a source of stress, which is linked to reduced animal welfare and increased antimicrobial use. As the gatekeepers of the welfare of the animals under their care, farmers are seen as the stakeholder responsible for improving animal welfare. The aim of this study was to explore the knowledge and attitudes of pig farmers towards pig welfare and the impact of such attitudes on farmers' selection of management strategies on the farm. We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 44 pig farmers in one of the main pig producing regions of Brazil. Interviews covered knowledge and attitudes towards pig sentience and behaviour and welfare-related issues commonly observed in intensive pig farms (belly-nosing, fights, tail-biting, diarrhoea and castration without pain control) and farmers' conception and attitudes towards pig welfare. We identified many management and animal-based indicators of poor welfare, such as the use of painful and stressful management practices and use of environments that limit the expression of natural behaviours. However, most farmers were satisfied with animal welfare standards at their farms. Farmers' perceptions are aligned with their understanding of animal welfare. Although they identified all the dimensions that impact the welfare of a pig on a farm (affect, biological functioning and naturalness), their social reality, industry demands and available advice pushed them to perceive their range of action limited to biological and environmental aspects of the animals that do not necessarily benefit affective state. This precluded farmers from making associations between good health and the animal's ability to express a full behavioural repertoire, as well as from viewing abnormal behaviours as problems. The negative consequences for the welfare of the animals were commonly alleviated by routines that relied on constant use of medication, including high dependence on antibiotics. Expressions of estrangement from the production chain were common voices among the participants. This suggests that farmers may not be sufficiently informed or engaged in responding to consumers' expectations and commitments made by companies, which can pose a severe economic risk for farmers. The findings of this study indicate that economic, technical and social factors restrict farmers' autonomy and their ability to perform their role as stewards of animal welfare. (Re)connecting different human, animal and environmental interests may be a step to changing this scenario.     

What is the value of wild animal welfare for restoration ecology?

The restoration community continues to discuss what constitutes good environmental stewardship. One area of tension is the extent to which the well‐being of wild animals should inform restoration efforts. We discuss three ways that the perspective of wild animal welfare can augment restoration ecology: strengthening people's relationship with nature, reinforcing biotic integrity, and reducing mechanistic uncertainty. The animal welfare movement elevates sentient animals as stakeholders and explores how environmental context directly impacts the well‐being of individuals. Viewing wild animals through this lens may encourage people to think and act with empathy and altruism. Second, we incorporate animal welfare into the concept of biotic integrity for ecological and ethical reasons. Restoring ecosystem processes may enhance animal welfare, and vice versa. Alternatively, there may be a trade‐off between these factors, requiring local decision‐makers to prioritize between restoring ecosystem function and promoting individuals' well‐being. We conclude by discussing how welfare can impact population recovery, thereby adding insights about mechanisms underpinning restoration objectives. Ultimately, restoration ecologists and proponents of wild animal welfare could enjoy a productive union.     

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.     

Welfare assessment in transgenic pigs expressing green fluorescent protein (GFP)

Since large animal transgenesis has been successfully attempted for the first time about 25 years ago, the technology has been applied in various lines of transgenic pigs. Nevertheless one of the concerns with the technology--animal welfare--has not been approached through systematic assessment and statements regarding the welfare of transgenic pigs have been based on anecdotal observations during early stages of transgenic programs. The main aim of the present study was therefore to perform an extensive welfare assessment comparing heterozygous transgenic animals expressing GFP with wildtype animals along various stages of post natal development. The protocol used covered reproductory performance and behaviour in GFP and wildtype sows and general health and development, social behaviour, exploratory behaviour and emotionality in GFP and wildtype littermates from birth until an age of roughly 4 months. The absence of significant differences between GFP and wildtype animals in the parameters observed suggests that the transgenic animals in question are unlikely to suffer from deleterious effects of transgene expression on their welfare and thus support existing anecdotal observations of pigs expressing GFP as healthy. Although the results are not surprising in the light of previous experience, they give a more solid fundament to the evaluation of GFP expression as being relatively non-invasive in pigs. The present study may furthermore serve as starting point for researchers aiming at a systematic characterization of welfare relevant effects in the line of transgenic pigs they are working with.     

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.     

A History of Animal Welfare Science

Human attitudes to animals have changed as non-humans have become more widely incorporated in the category of moral agents who deserve some respect. Parallels between the functioning of humans and non-humans have been made for thousands of years but the idea that the animals that we keep can suffer has spread recently. An improved understanding of motivation, cognition and the complexity of social behaviour in animals has led in the last 30 years to the rapid development of animal welfare science. Early attempts to define welfare referred to individuals being in harmony with nature but the first usable definition incorporated feelings and health as part of attempts to cope with the environment. Others considered that welfare is only about feelings but it is argued that as feelings are mechanisms that have evolved they are a part of welfare rather than all of it. Most reviews of welfare now start with listing the needs of the animal, including needs to show certain behaviours. This approach has used sophisticated studies of what is important to animals and has replaced the earlier general guidelines described as freedoms. Many measures of welfare are now used and indicate how good or how poor the welfare is. Naturalness is not a part of the definition of welfare but explains why some needs exist. In recent years, welfare has become established as one of various criteria used to decide on whether a system is sustainable because members of the public will not accept systems that cause poor welfare. The study of welfare has become part of the scientific basis upon which important political decisions are made.     

A cautionary note regarding the use of nutritional L-tryptophan to alter aversion-related behaviour in mice

Nutritional L-tryptophan is reported to have positive effects on the behaviour of several farm animals. The present experiment describes some effects of nutritional L-tryptophan on the aversion-related behaviour of male mice selected for high litter size. The behavioural effects of L-tryptophan were observed in the elevated plus-maze, the light/dark test and a resident-intruder test. The only significant effect was observed in the resident-intruder test, where the total occurrence of exploratory behaviour by the intruder was reduced by L-tryptophan treatment. The present experiment provides a cautionary note advising against supplementation with L-tryptophan to improve animal welfare before the consequences of such treatment are fully understood.     

Public Health Ethics and a Status for Pets as Person-Things

Within the field of medical ethics, discussions related to public health have mainly concentrated on issues that are closely tied to research and practice involving technologies and professional services, including vaccination, screening, and insurance coverage. Broader determinants of population health have received less attention, although this situation is rapidly changing. Against this backdrop, our specific contribution to the literature on ethics and law vis-à-vis promoting population health is to open up the ubiquitous presence of pets within cities and towns for further discussion. An expanding body of research suggests that pet animals are deeply relevant to people’s health (negatively and positively). Pet bylaws adopted by town and city councils have largely escaped notice, yet they are meaningful to consider in relation to everyday practices, social norms, and cultural values, and thus in relation to population health. Nevertheless, not least because they pivot on defining pets as private property belonging to individual people, pet bylaws raise emotionally charged ethical issues that have yet to be tackled in any of the health research on pet ownership. The literature in moral philosophy on animals is vast, and we do not claim to advance this field here. Rather, we pragmatically seek to reconcile philosophical objections to pet ownership with both animal welfare and public health. In doing so, we foreground theorizations of personhood and property from sociocultural anthropology.     

Friends with benefits: Social support and its relevance for farm animal welfare

Despite growing interest in promoting positive welfare, rather than just alleviating poor welfare, potential measures of good welfare, and means to provide it, have remained elusive. In humans social support improves stress-coping abilities, health, and promotes positive psychological welfare. Therefore, social support may be a key approach to promote positive physical and psychological welfare in farm animals. However, the roles of positive social behaviors and social support have been overlooked in comparison to negative social behaviors such as agonistic interactions. The benefits of social partners on an animal's stress coping abilities and welfare are yet poorly understood.The purpose of this paper is to review the protective or buffering effects of social support against stressful challenges and its potential implications for farm animal welfare. The biology of social support is first presented with its behavior, endocrine, autonomic and immune components. The major factors modulating the social support process are then synthesized. Research and implications for animal welfare in different farm species are discussed. Lastly, this review identifies research areas that especially deserve further attention in our effort to understand and implement social support in farm animal welfare.Social support could constitute one of the foundations for welfare researchers to leap from the absence of negative welfare to the provision of positive welfare and emotional experiences.