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.     

Vocal behaviour in cattle: the animal's commentary on its biological processes and welfare

The vocalizations of cattle provide conspecifics with meaningful information about the caller. If we can learn how to interpret this information correctly, it could be used to improve management and welfare assessment. Vocalization may be viewed as a subjective commentary, by an individual, on its own internal state. The vocal behaviour of cattle is potentially a useful indicator of their physiological and psychological functioning.In the first part of this article we ask what information is exchanged using auditory cues. Vocalizations provide information on the age, sex, dominance status and reproductive status of the caller. Calves can recognize their mothers using vocal cues but it is not clear whether cows recognize their offspring in this way. Vocal behaviour may play a role in estrus advertisement and competitive display by bulls. Under experimental conditions involving pain or social isolation, vocal response is useful as an indicator of welfare, if properly used. Unlike commonly used physiological measures, it can be recorded non-invasively and varies on a number of quantitative and qualitative dimensions.In the second part we review methodological approaches to the study of vocal behaviour and their application in cattle welfare research. Methods may focus on the actions of the vocalizing animal and the conditions which elicit vocal behaviour, the response of an animal to hearing another's vocalizations, or interactions between sender and receiver.We argue that vocal behaviour in cattle may be valuable in welfare studies if the endogenous, exogenous and developmental factors influencing its expression can be more thoroughly investigated and understood.     

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.     

Food sensory characteristics: their unconsidered roles in the feeding behaviour of domestic ruminants

When domestic ruminants are faced with food diversity, they can use pre-ingestive information (i.e. food sensory characteristics perceived by the animal before swallowing the food) and post-ingestive information (i.e. digestive and metabolic consequences, experienced by the animal after swallowing the food) to evaluate the food and make decisions to select a suitable diet. The concept of palatability is essential to understand how pre- and post-ingestive information are interrelated. It refers to the hedonic value of the food without any immediate effect of post-ingestive consequences and environmental factors, but with the influence of individual characteristics, such as animal's genetic background, internal state and previous experiences. In the literature, the post-ingestive consequences are commonly considered as the main force that influences feeding behaviour whereas food sensory characteristics are only used as discriminatory agents. This discriminatory role is indeed important for animals to be aware of their feeding environment, and ruminants are able to use their different senses either singly or in combination to discriminate between different foods. However, numerous studies on ruminants’ feeding behaviour demonstrate that the role of food sensory characteristics has been underestimated or simplified; they could play at least two other roles. First, some sensory characteristics also possess a hedonic value which influences ruminants’ intake, preferences and food learning independently of any immediate post-ingestive consequences. Further, diversity of food sensory characteristics has a hedonic value, as animals prefer an absence of monotony in food sensory characteristics at similar post-ingestive consequences. Second, some of these food sensory characteristics become an indicator of post-ingestive consequences after their initial hedonic value has acquired a positive or a negative value via previous individual food learning or evolutionary processes. These food sensory characteristics thus represent cues that could help ruminants to anticipate the post-ingestive consequences of a food and to improve their learning efficiency, especially in complex environments. This review then suggests that food sensory characteristics could be of importance to provide pleasure to animals, to increase palatability of a food and to help them learn in complex feeding situations which could improve animal welfare and productivity.     

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.     

Limited Company

ABSTRACT

This paper looks at the attitudes that scientists hold toward their use of animals, and at some implications for the welfare of laboratory animals. The framework for this analysis is recent changes in the law regulating the use of animals in British science. We note how ambivalent many scientists are about the way they perceive the animals they use, and the moral dilemmas such use poses. We argue, however, that the legislation itself cannot mediate improvements in animal welfare, as it is inevitably policed by the scientific community itself and thus dependent upon values and social relationships within science. We also argue that debates about the promotion of lab animals' welfare tend to use the distancing stance of science; they focus on scientific studies of welfare and behavior, but ignore the context. An important part of that context is the relationships between humans and animals in the lab, which should be taken into account more fully if animals are to benefit.     

Identifying and monitoring pain in farm animals: a review

One important objective for animal welfare is to maintain animals free from pain, injury or disease. Therefore, detecting and evaluating the intensity of animal pain is crucial. As animals cannot directly communicate their feelings, it is necessary to identify sensitive and specific indicators that can be easily used. The aim of the present paper is to review relevant indicators to assess pain in several farm species. The term pain is used for mammals, birds and fish, even though the abilities of the various species to experience the emotional component of pain may be different. Numerous behavioural changes are associated with pain and many of them could be used on farms to assess the degree of pain being experienced by an animal. Pain, as a stressor, is associated with variations in the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis as well as in the sympathetic and immune systems that can be used to identify the presence of pain rapidly after it started. However, most of these measures need sophisticated equipment for their assessment. Therefore, they are mainly adapted to experimental situations. Injuries and other lesional indicators give information on the sources of pain and are convenient to use in all types of situations. Histopathological analyses can identify sources of pain in experimental studies. When pronounced and/or long lasting, the pain-induced behavioural and physiological changes can decrease production performance. Some indicators are very specific and sensitive to pain, whereas others are more generally related to stressful situations. The latter can be used to indicate that animals are suffering from something, which may be pain. Overall, this literature review shows that several indicators exist to assess pain in mammals, a few in birds and very few in fish. Even if in some cases, a single indicator, usually a behavioural indicator, may be sufficient to detect pain, combining various types of indicators increases sensitivity and specificity of pain assessment. Research is needed to build and validate new indicators and to develop systems of pain assessment adapted to each type of situation and each species.     

Current issues in fish welfare

Human beings may affect the welfare of fish through fisheries, aquaculture and a number of other activities. There is no agreement on just how to weigh the concern for welfare of fish against the human interests involved, but ethical frameworks exist that suggest how this might be approached. Different definitions of animal welfare focus on an animal's condition, on its subjective experience of that condition and/or on whether it can lead a natural life. These provide different, legitimate, perspectives, but the approach taken in this paper is to focus on welfare as the absence of suffering. An unresolved and controversial issue in discussions about animal welfare is whether non‐human animals exposed to adverse experiences such as physical injury or confinement experience what humans would call suffering. The neocortex, which in humans is an important part of the neural mechanism that generates the subjective experience of suffering, is lacking in fish and non‐mammalian animals, and it has been argued that its absence in fish indicates that fish cannot suffer. A strong alternative view, however, is that complex animals with sophisticated behaviour, such as fish, probably have the capacity for suffering, though this may be different in degree and kind from the human experience of this state. Recent empirical studies support this view and show that painful stimuli are, at least, strongly aversive to fish. Consequently, injury or experience of other harmful conditions is a cause for concern in terms of welfare of individual fish. There is also growing evidence that fish can experience fear‐like states and that they avoid situations in which they have experienced adverse conditions. Human activities that potentially compromise fish welfare include anthropogenic changes to the environment, commercial fisheries, recreational angling, aquaculture, ornamental fish keeping and scientific research. The resulting harm to fish welfare is a cost that must be minimized and weighed against the benefits of the activity concerned. Wild fish naturally experience a variety of adverse conditions, from attack by predators or conspecifics to starvation or exposure to poor environmental conditions. This does not make it acceptable for humans to impose such conditions on fish, but it does suggest that fish will have mechanisms to cope with these conditions and reminds us that pain responses are in some cases adaptive (for example, suppressing feeding when injured). In common with all vertebrates, fish respond to environmental challenges with a series of adaptive neuro‐endocrine adjustments that are collectively termed the stress response. These in turn induce reversible metabolic and behavioural changes that make the fish better able to overcome or avoid the challenge and are undoubtedly beneficial, in the short‐term at least. In contrast, prolonged activation of the stress response is damaging and leads to immuno‐suppression, reduced growth and reproductive dysfunction. Indicators associated with the response to chronic stress (physiological endpoints, disease status and behaviour) provide a potential source of information on the welfare status of a fish. The most reliable assessment of well‐being will be obtained by examining a range of informative measures and statistical techniques are available that enable several such measures to be combined objectively. A growing body of evidence tells us that many human activities can harm fish welfare, but that the effects depend on the species and life‐history stage concerned and are also context‐dependent. For example, in aquaculture, adverse effects related to stocking density may be eliminated if good water quality is maintained. At low densities, bad water quality may be less likely to arise whereas social interactions may cause greater welfare problems. A number of key differences between fish and birds and mammals have important implications for their welfare. Fish do not need to fuel a high body temperature, so the effects of food deprivation on welfare are not so marked. For species that live naturally in large shoals, low rather than high densities may be harmful. On the other hand, fish are in intimate contact with their environment through the huge surface area of their gills, so they are vulnerable to poor water quality and water borne pollutants. Extrapolation between taxa is dangerous and general frameworks for ensuring welfare in other vertebrate animals need to be modified before they can be usefully applied to fish. The scientific study of fish welfare is at an early stage compared with work on other vertebrates and a great deal of what we need to know is yet to be discovered. It is clearly the case that fish, though different from birds and mammals, however, are sophisticated animals, far removed from unfeeling creatures with a 15 s memory of popular misconception. A heightened appreciation of these points in those who exploit fish and in those who seek to protect them would go a long way towards improving fish welfare.     

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.     

Attitudes of Dairy Farmers toward Cow Welfare in Relation to Housing,Management and Productivity

ABSTRACT

The quality of stockmanship contributes to the human–animal relationship, animal welfare and productivity. Attitudes can affect the way farmers treat their animals, the environment they provide the animals with, and even their own job satisfaction through the feedback received from the animals. Farmers' perceptions of animals have also been shown to have an impact on productivity. We investigated 161 Finnish dairy farmers' attitudes toward improving animal welfare through an attitude questionnaire that used the Theory of Planned Behavior as a theoretical framework. The theory states that personal attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, together shape an individual's behavioral intentions and behaviors. To study the relationship between attitudes, animal welfare, and milk production, we used environment-based animal welfare indicator data consisting of categorized housing and management parameters, and mean milk production data. Non-parametric partial correlation analyses and regression analyses revealed that perceiving the measures to improve animal welfare to be important and easy were positively, although weakly, related to higher animal welfare standards/indicators, while no connection with production was established. Contrary to our expectations, sources of subjective norms, such as an agricultural adviser, were mostly negatively linked with animal welfare indicators and even with production. The farmers considered taking care of their own well-being as the most important way of improving animal welfare, and intending to do so was weakly but positively linked with animal welfare indicators. Any causal relationships, however, cannot be derived from the data.     

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.     

Review: Assessment of dairy cow welfare at pasture: measures available,gaps to address,and pathways to development of ad-hoc protocols

Pasture is generally perceived as positive for dairy cow welfare, but it nevertheless exposes cows to heat, parasites, and other challenges. This review is intended for people ready to design comprehensive protocols for assessing the welfare of dairy cows at pasture. We provide an overview of the benefits and risks of pasture for cows, and then go on to identify the available and feasible measures for assessing cow welfare at pasture and the gaps that need to be addressed to develop specific welfare measures. Some of the measures from on-farm welfare assessment protocols designed for indoor use (e.g. Welfare Quality®) are relevant for cows at pasture (e.g. lameness scoring). However, the timing, location and/or method for certain measures (e.g. observation of social behaviour) need to be adapted to the pasture context, as cows at pasture can roam over a large area. Measures to address specific pasture-related risks (e.g. heat stress, biosecurity) or benefits (e.g. expression of a wide range of behaviours) should be implemented in order to capture all dimensions of cow welfare at pasture. Furthermore, cow welfare is liable to vary over the grazing season due to changes in weather conditions, grass quality and pasture plots that induce variations in lying surface conditions, food availability, distance to walk to the milking parlour, and so on. It is therefore important to investigate the variability in different welfare measures across the pasture season to check whether they hold stable over time and, if not, to determine solutions that can give an overview across the grazing season. Sensors offer a promising complement to animal and environment observations, as they can capture long-term animal monitoring data, which is simply not possible for a one-day welfare-check visit. We conclude that some measures validated for indoor situations can already be used in pasture-based systems, while others need to be validated for their fitness for purpose and/or use in pasture conditions. Furthermore, thresholds should probably be determined for measures to fit with pasture contexts. If all measures can be made adaptable to all situations encountered on farms or variants of the measures can at least be proposed for each criterion, then it should be possible to produce a comprehensive welfare assessment protocol suitable for large-scale use in near future.     

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.     

Behavioural deprivation: A central problem in animal welfare

A key issue in animal welfare is whether keeping animals in conditions where they cannot or do not perform behaviour typical of more naturally-kept members of their species causes them to suffer. Various measures have been used to resolve this issue. The cost an animal is prepared to pay for the opportunity to perform different behaviour can be used as a measure of the importance of that behaviour to the animal. Manipulation of time-budgets is the most reliable method of measuring such costs and of relating “deprivation” to “suffering”.     

Attitudes toward Animals of Students at Three European Veterinary Medicine Schools in Italy and Spain

The European Veterinary Code of Conduct recognizes the crucial role of veterinarians in improving animal welfare and maintaining its standards. However, several studies have claimed that veterinary students’ attitudes toward animals may worsen as they progress through their academic training. This study aimed to investigate students’ attitudes toward nonhuman animal use in three European veterinary medicine schools (Italy and Spain). For this purpose, 565 veterinary students completed a questionnaire consisting of a range of items grouped into four animal-use categories: “Research,” “Entertainment,” “Utilitarianism,” and “Veterinary Issues.” Items were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with higher scores indicative of higher concern regarding animal welfare. Results showed that the use of animals for “Entertainment” and questions related to “Veterinary Issues” raised the most concern among the veterinary students, while the use of animals for “Research” was of least concern. Moreover, we also examined some potentially confounding factors: age, academic year (first to fifth), gender, previous experience with pets, and university. Female students had a higher concern for animal welfare compared with their male counterparts. Students in their earlier stages of training as veterinarians also exhibited a greater concern for animal welfare compared with those of later academic years. Other factors affecting students’ attitudes toward animal use were the age of the students and the university they were enrolled at. The findings of this study confirm that attitudes toward animal use are not homogeneous and are associated with students’ demographic, educational, and personal characteristics.     

Joyful by nature: approaches to investigate the evolution and function of joy in non-human animals

The nature and evolution of positive emotion is a major question remaining unanswered in science and philosophy. The study of feelings and emotions in humans and animals is dominated by discussion of affective states that have negative valence. Given the clinical and social significance of negative affect, such as depression, it is unsurprising that these emotions have received more attention from scientists. Compared to negative emotions, such as fear that leads to fleeing or avoidance, positive emotions are less likely to result in specific, identifiable, behaviours being expressed by an animal. This makes it particularly challenging to quantify and study positive affect. However, bursts of intense positive emotion (joy) are more likely to be accompanied by externally visible markers, like vocalisations or movement patterns, which make it more amenable to scientific study and more resilient to concerns about anthropomorphism. We define joy as intense, brief, and event-driven (i.e. a response to something), which permits investigation into how animals react to a variety of situations that would provoke joy in humans. This means that behavioural correlates of joy are measurable, either through newly discovered ‘laughter’ vocalisations, increases in play behaviour, or reactions to cognitive bias tests that can be used across species. There are a range of potential situations that cause joy in humans that have not been studied in other animals, such as whether animals feel joy on sunny days, when they accomplish a difficult feat, or when they are reunited with a familiar companion after a prolonged absence. Observations of species-specific calls and play behaviour can be combined with biometric markers and reactions to ambiguous stimuli in order to enable comparisons of affect between phylogenetically distant taxonomic groups. Identifying positive affect is also important for animal welfare because knowledge of positive emotional states would allow us to monitor animal well-being better. Additionally, measuring if phylogenetically and ecologically distant animals play more, laugh more, or act more optimistically after certain kinds of experiences will also provide insight into the mechanisms underlying the evolution of joy and other positive emotions, and potentially even into the evolution of consciousness.     

The ethics of fish welfare

The topic of fish welfare in the context of commercial fisheries is a difficult one. From traditionally anthropocentric or human‐centred perspectives, fishes are simply objects for humans to use as they see fit. When it is argued that anthropocentrism is arbitrary, it may appear that a strong animal rights position is the only recourse, with the result that humans ought not to use animals in the first place, if it is at all possible. It can be argued that both positions fail to view human beings as part of the natural world. If human beings are viewed as part of the world from which they live, then it has to be asked what it means to be respectful of the animals which humans use and from which they live. From this perspective, concern for the welfare of the fishes humans eat is simply what should be expected from humans as good citizens in the community of living creatures.     

Main animal welfare problems in ruminant livestock during preslaughter operations: a South American view

Animals destined for meat production are usually exposed to many stressful conditions during production and particularly during preslaughter operations. Handling animals on farm, loading into and unloading from vehicles, transportation, passing through livestock markets, fasting, lairage and stunning can all affect their welfare. How badly welfare can be affected will depend on both the intrinsic factors of the specific type of animal involved and the extrinsic factors of the environment where those animals live or are being handled, including the animal handlers. In South America (SA), it has been part of a strategy for improving animal welfare (AW) to address not only ethical aspects, but to emphasize the close relationship existing between handling ruminants preslaughter and the quantity and quality of the meat they produce. This has resulted not only in improvements in AW, but has also brought economic rewards to producers which in turn can lead to higher incomes for them and hence better human welfare. For producers with a high number of animals, considering AW during production and preslaughter operations can determine the possibility of exporting and/or getting better prices for their products. At smallfarmer level, particularly in some less developed countries, where human welfare is impaired, using this strategy together with education has also been relevant. It is important that education and training in AW are done not only considering global knowledge, but also including specific geographical and climatic characteristics of each country and the cultural, religious and socio-economical characteristics of its people; therefore, research within the context of each country or region becomes relevant. The aim of this review was to show the results of research dealing with AW of ruminant livestock in Chile and some other SA countries. Some of the main problems encountered are related to lack of proper infrastructure to handle animals; long distance transport with high stocking densities in the larger countries; long fasting times due to animals passing through livestock markets and dealers; bad handling of animals by untrained personnel in these and other premises; and finally the lack of knowledge and skills by operators in charge of stunning procedures. Interventions at these stages have considered training animal handlers and transporters by showing them the consequences of bad handling with audiovisual material prepared on site. Research results have helped to improve AW and support the development of new legislation or to make changes in the existent legislation related to AW.     

Why and how should we use environmental enrichment to tackle stereotypic behaviour?

This paper summarises recent findings on the causation of stereotypic behaviours and other abnormal repetitive behaviours (ARBs) in captive animals: primarily motivational frustration and/or brain dysfunction, with possible contributory roles also being played by habit-formation and ‘coping’ effects. We then review the extent to which ARBs occur in zoos and similar, estimating that at least 10 000 captive wild animals are affected worldwide. We argue for ‘zero tolerance’ of such ARBs, because stress and poor welfare raise ethical issues, while abnormal behavioural phenotypes and possibilities of impaired brain development challenge both the indirect (e.g. educational) and the direct, intrinsic conservation value of affected animals. We then consider five potential means by which ARBs may be tackled: genetic selection; pharmacological treatment; the reinforcement of alternative behaviours; punishment; and environmental enrichment. All except punishment have potentially useful roles to play, but enrichment is the preferred approach: it is most likely to tackle the problems underlying stereotypic behaviours, and thence to improve both welfare and behaviour with few unwanted side-effects. Nevertheless, in zoos, environmental enrichment to date has only had partial success, with no study managing to abolish ARBs in all its subjects—suggesting either that the enrichments currently being used are never quite optimal, or that by the time they are tackled, ARBs have become resistant to change. We suggest some ways in which the effectiveness of enrichments may be enhanced; propose that certain properties of ARBs may usefully help evaluate their likely ‘treatability’; and emphasise that if improving welfare is more important than just reducing ARB, then additional measures are needed in order to first, reliably identify those individuals most at risk from poor welfare, and then, to fully evaluate the welfare impact of enrichments. This paper also emphasises, with examples, the enormous potential value of zoo-derived data for helping understand how taxon, ecological niche, rearing history, and current housing together affect animals’ responses to captivity.     

Genetic engineering, welfare, and accountability

Comments on the implications of genetic engineering for animal welfare. Welfare problems associated with techniques used to achieve genetic changes; Detrimental effects of genetic modifications to welfare; Modification of farm animals for biomedical products. Implications of genetic engineering for animal welfare are changing rapidly and need to be reviewed regularly. They include the welfare problems associated with techniques used to achieve genetic changes, which are similar to problems of other experimental approaches; these should be considered carefully, especially where techniques are used on a routine basis. When it comes to the genetic modifications themselves, some are detrimental to welfare, some are neutral, and some are beneficial; these results include direct effects of the intended change, side effects, and indirect effects. Currently, the two main applications are modification of farm animals for biomedical products--which appears to be largely neutral for welfare--and modification of mice as models for human disease, which results in suffering, often severe suffering. Beneficial applications are rare and still experimental or theoretical. The situation is similar with regard to the use of recombinant hormones and viruses; use of recombinant vaccines has potential for improving welfare, but may raise other ethical problems. Although few, if any, of these concerns are specific to genetic engineering, various factors combine to suggest that particular safeguards are needed in this field. These include the facts that changes can be produced rapidly and repeatedly, and that one of the driving forces behind genetic engineering is commercial exploitation of technology. In general, ethical evaluation still is done on a case-by-case basis, using the limited criteria seen as directly relevant to each case, rather than on a broader framework. There also is little public accountability, whereby the public can have confidence that such evaluation is being carried out properly. Calls for advisory “watchdog ”committees to consider ethical questions on the use of animals are endorsed by this article. Furthermore, it is essential for public confidence in the safeguarding of animal welfare that the procedures of such committees should be well-publicized.