Has the Child Welfare Profession Discovered Nepotistic Biases?

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

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

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

Simplifying the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for broiler chicken welfare

Welfare Quality® (WQ) assessment protocols place the emphasis on animal-based measures as an indicator for animal welfare. Stakeholders, however, emphasize that a reduction in the time taken to complete the protocol is essential to improve practical applicability. We studied the potential for reduction in time to complete the WQ broiler assessment protocol and present some modifications to the protocol correcting a few errors in the original calculations. Data was used from 180 flocks assessed on-farm and 150 flocks assessed at the slaughter plant. Correlations between variables were calculated, and where correlation was moderate, meaningful and promising (in terms of time reduction), simplification was considered using one variable predicted from another variable. Correlation analysis revealed a promising correlation between severe hock burn and gait scores on-farm. Therefore, prediction of gait scores using hock burn scores was studied further as a possible simplification strategy (strategy 1). Measurements of footpad dermatitis, hock burn, cleanliness and gait score on-farm correlated moderately to highly with slaughter plant measurements of footpad dermatitis and/or hock burn, supporting substitution of on-farm measurements with slaughter plant data. A simplification analysis was performed using footpad dermatitis, hock burn, cleanliness and gait scores measured on-farm predicted from slaughter plant measurements of footpad dermatitis and hock burn (strategy 2). Simplification strategies were compared with the full assessment protocol. Close agreement was found between the full protocol and both simplification strategies although large confidence intervals were found for specificity of the simplified models. It is concluded that the proposed simplification strategies are encouraging; strategy 1 can reduce the time to complete the on-farm assessment by ~1 h (25% to 33% reduction) and strategy 2 can reduce on-farm assessment time by ~2 h (50% to 67% reduction). Both simplification strategies should, however, be validated further, and tested on farms with a wide distribution across the different welfare categories of WQ.     

Assessment of the multi-criteria evaluation system of the Welfare Quality® protocol for growing pigs

Animal welfare has become an important subject of public and political debate, leading to the necessity of an objective evaluation system for on-farm use. As welfare is a multi-dimensional concept, it makes sense to use a multi-criteria aggregation system to obtain an overall welfare score. Such an aggregation system is provided by the Welfare Quality® Network. The present paper focusses on the assessment of the multi-criteria evaluation model included in the Welfare Quality® protocol for growing pigs in order to aggregate the animal-based indicators first to criteria, then to principles and finally to an overall welfare score. Specifically, the importance of the indicators on the overall assessment of growing pig farms is analysed in a given population which consisted of a total of 198 protocol assessments carried out on a sample of 24 farms in Germany. By means of partial least squares modelling, the influence of measures in the calculation procedure is estimated by calculation and interpretation of Variable Importance for Projection (VIP) scores. Variable Importance for Projection scores revealed some meaningful, unexpected influences as the multi-criteria evaluation model of Welfare Quality® aimed at avoiding interferences and double-counting. Some of these influences led to the assumption that some measures might have potential as iceberg indicators, whereas others showed lesser importance. Thus, feasibility can be gained by the deletion and special weighting of indicators according to their importance. Altogether, the study is an essential contribution to the further development of the Welfare Quality® protocols as well as the application of multi-criteria decision systems in the field of animal welfare science in general.     

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.     

US Residents’ Perceptions of Dog Welfare Needs and Canine Welfare Information Sources

The extent to which welfare needs of breeding dogs are met in commercial dog-breeding kennels is a potential point of controversy. This analysis sought to understand US residents’ perceptions and priorities related to dog welfare : by investigating (a) perceptions of breeding-dog welfare needs and (b) perceptions of various nonhuman animal welfare information sources. Using best/worst-choice experiments conducted in an online survey, respondents’ choices for most and least important breeding-dog welfare needs (n = 508) and most/least trusted canine welfare information sources (n = 508) were analyzed. The survey sample was targeted to be representative of the US population in terms of gender, age, region of residence, income, and education. The largest preference shares (relatively most important) for breeding-dog welfare needs were for “availability of food and water” (39.2%) and health/veterinary care (18.1%). The largest preference shares (relatively most trusted sources) for welfare information were American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a veterinarian, and American Veterinary Medical Association, with 25.1%, 16.4%, and 14.1% shares, respectively.     

Willingness to Pay: Australian Consumers and “On the Farm” Welfare

The success of welfare legislation for nonhuman animals rests upon primary producer compliance that, in turn, is affected by public willingness to pay (WTP) for such initiatives. Although the topic of the welfare of animals on farms (and relevant legislation) is becoming increasingly important to the Australian public, there remain relatively few recent assessments of the variables that may affect WTP and, therefore, support initiatives aimed at improving the welfare of animals living on farms. This study surveyed 1,224 community members in Queensland, Australia. The study assessed respondents' self-rated knowledge of, and concern regarding, farm animal welfare. In addition, the survey asked respondents how much more they would be prepared to pay for animal-based products to ensure that they came from a source where the Five Freedoms were met. Although self-rated knowledge and level of concern were found to affect WTP, the study found only concern for farm animal welfare actually predicted consumer behavior. Further analyses showed a potential confound between knowledge levels and locality. This article discusses the implications of this for future initiatives to increase WTP.     

Application of the Welfare Quality® assessment system on European beef bull farms

Welfare concerns for intensive beef production have often been raised, but on-farm welfare assessment studies are rare. The aim of this study was to apply the Welfare Quality® (WQ) welfare assessment system for fattening cattle on beef bull farms to evaluate the state of welfare at the level of WQ measures and of aggregated scores, as well as overall classification. In addition, the purpose was to evaluate two ways of providing feedback information to the farmers with regard to possible welfare improvements on the farms. The study was conducted in Austria, Germany and Italy on a total of 63 beef bull farms with deep litter or cubicle-housing systems. Assessments were carried out 3 times (1 month and 7 months apart from the initial visit). In every country, farmers were assigned to two treatment groups (feedback from initial visit as written report, F, written feedback plus oral advice, FA) and a control group (C), which did not receive any feedback. At the criterion level, the highest average welfare scores were obtained from ‘Absence of prolonged hunger’ (94/100 points) followed by ‘Absence of pain induced by management procedures’ (88/100) and ‘Comfort around resting’ (77/100). Most welfare concerns related to the criteria ‘Absence of disease’ (40/100), ‘Expression of social behaviour’ (44/100) and ‘Positive emotional state’ (48/100), thus indicating room for improvements. Two-thirds of the farms achieved the ‘Enhanced’ level, about one-third was judged ‘Acceptable’ and only one farm ‘Excellent’. After 6 months of monitoring period, there was no significant welfare improvement in both the treatment groups as compared with the control group. Reasons for the lack of effect may mainly be seen in the short monitoring period and a lack of external incentives. In conclusion, the WQ assessment system revealed areas for improvement, but longer term studies and investigations on alternative ways of transferring outcomes from on-farm welfare assessments to farmers should be carried out in future.     

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

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

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

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

Justice For All? Children’s Moral Reasoning about the Welfare and Rights of Endangered Species

This study reports children’s developing moral concerns for endangered animals. Three questions were addressed: 1) Do children conceive of not harming an endangered animal as a moral obligation? 2) Do children use biocentric (nature-centered) moral reasoning? and 3) Does a developmental shift in biocentrism occur between the ages of 7and 10-years-old? Fifty-two urban children (gender balanced and evenly divided between two ages groups: 7 and 10-year-olds) from the Pacific Northwest were interviewed regarding their understanding of, and beliefs and values about, endangered animals, their moral obligatory concerns, and their conceptions of animal rights. Many questions focused on a single species—the gray wolf— as it presents a canonical example of a local, familiar, charismatic endangered animal. The semi-structured interview methodology and the coding procedures followed well-established methods in social-cognitive psychology. Results were that the 7 and 10-year-olds valued endangered animals, extended moral obligations to gray wolves, and endorsed animal rights. Quantitative analysis of the content responses revealed a typology of seven rights that children spontaneously offered when asked which rights animals have: food, companionship, reproduction, habitat, play/exercise, welfare, and autonomy. The 10-year-olds were significantly more likely to endorse autonomy rights than the 7-year-olds. The findings reveal the highest rates of biocentrism observed in young children, and the 10-year-olds endorsed biocentrism to a greater degree than the 7-year-olds. Children drew on their understanding of human moral concerns to extend these concerns to the animal. Sentiency and biological needs are salient features that allow children to take the perspective of the animal in ways that build upon and diverge from their own experiences. These findings provide a comparative baseline for extending our understanding of biocentrism across cultures, animal kinds, and in human–wildlife conflict scenarios.     

Dutch Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Broiler Welfare

This article analyzes Dutch consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for the welfare of broiler chickens and the consequences for nonhuman animal welfare policies. Using data from a discrete-choice experiment and a random parameter logit model, this study showed that consumers particularly value opportunities for outdoor access and the method used for anesthesia before slaughter. The WTP was also positively related to the number of consumers buying the same product, indicating that they experience the public-good dilemma. Moreover, the WTP was higher if consumers knew that animal welfare practices were subject to public or collective supervision. Women, people with more education, those with higher income, and nonreligious people had relatively high WTP values. For 87.5% of the respondents, the WTP exceeded the price difference between a broiler with a higher level of animal welfare and a regular chicken. The findings suggest that the Dutch market for broiler chickens can be improved by raising consumer confidence in the labeling system.     

Short communication: Evaluation of the sample size of individual indicators in gestating sows concerning the Welfare Quality® protocol applied to sows and piglets

Sample sizes of welfare assessment protocols must warrant to reflect prevalences on-farm properly – regardless of farm size. Still, solely a fixed sample size was specified for the Welfare Quality® protocol for sows and piglets. The present study investigated whether animals may be assessed from only one body side as applied in the protocol and whether the pre-set sample size of 30 animals mirrors the prevalences of the animal-based indicators on-farm in the gestation unit considering different farm sizes. All indicators were assessed for both sides of an animal’s body by one observer on 13 farms in Germany, which were visited five times within 10 months. The farm visits were treated as independent since different animals were housed in the gestation units. The number of sows in the gestation units varied between 18 and 549 animals. The comparison of sides was carried out calculating exact agreement between animals’ sides and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test (W). The results signified that it is sufficient to assess the animal from one side (exact agreement: 88.3% to 99.5%, except for bursitis (70.0%); W: P-values 0.14 to 0.92). However, if side preferences existed in the indicator bursitis a potential bias must be considered. In the following, the sample size was evaluated by comparing samples’ prevalences against true prevalence, that is, the prevalence of all observed animals in the gestation unit in each farm visit. Therefore, subsets of data were generated by applying simple random sampling without replacement. The samples randomly included the animals’ right or left sides. Linear regression was rated as appropriate provided: coefficient of determination R² ≥ 0.90, slope = 1 and intercept = 0 signifying exact agreement. The results revealed that the sample size required by the protocol and the application of calculation formulas are solely appropriate to mirror the prevalences of frequent indicators in the gestation unit, for example, bursitis (mean prevalence 34.4%). Using a proportion of animals, for example, a sample of 30% of all observed animals in a farm visit, pointed out that proportions must increase with indicators’ underlying prevalence narrowing 0.00%. Local infections (mean prevalence 13.3%) needed samples including 60% of all observed animals in each farm visit, whereas vulva lesions (mean prevalence 7.28%) only reached accuracy with the inclusion of 70% of the animals. Indicators with a mean prevalence of <1% were not analysed but can most likely only be ascertained by the assessment of all animals.     

A Survey of Chinese Citizens’ Perceptions on Farm Animal Welfare

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

Visitor Circulation and Nonhuman Animal Welfare: An Overlooked Variable?

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

The effects of farming systems (organic vs. conventional) on dairy cow welfare,based on the Welfare Quality® protocol

Animal welfare in livestock production is of great interest to consumers. The organic farming approach strives to ensure animal welfare based on preventive measures, but there are very few scientific studies that compare the actual differences in animal welfare between organic and conventional farms. Those studies that have been carried out frequently focus on specific aspects of animal welfare, mostly health issues. The aim of the present study, therefore, was to investigate the effects of the farming system on the welfare of dairy cows in a more holistic way. Although this study was carried out in just two federal states of Germany, the results could serve as a suitable model for the whole country. We used the Welfare Quality assessment protocol to measure welfare for dairy cattle (Welfare Quality®, 2009) and the results showed significant differences (P < 0.05) between organic and conventional farms, but there was also considerable variance between individual farms of the same farming system. Organic farms scored higher in all four Welfare Quality® principles: “Good Feeding”, “Good Housing”, “Good Health” and “Appropriate Behavior” compared to conventional farms. In particular, organic farms obtained higher scores with respect to Welfare Quality® measures of resting comfort, which contributes to a lower percentage of lameness; organic farms also implemented less painful methods for disbudding, or indeed carried out no disbudding, and provided access to pasture and outdoor exercise. However, organic farms still have room for improvement, especially with respect to animal health. Therefore, outcome‐based specifications should be included in the current (purely action-oriented) European regulation of organic production (EC, 2008; EU, 2018) to safeguard the health‐related aspects of animal welfare.     

Combining Nitrous Oxide with Carbon Dioxide Decreases the Time to Loss of Consciousness during Euthanasia in Mice — Refinement of Animal Welfare?

Carbon dioxide (CO(2)) is the most commonly used euthanasia agent for rodents despite potentially causing pain and distress. Nitrous oxide is used in man to speed induction of anaesthesia with volatile anaesthetics, via a mechanism referred to as the "second gas" effect. We therefore evaluated the addition of Nitrous Oxide (N(2)O) to a rising CO(2) concentration could be used as a welfare refinement of the euthanasia process in mice, by shortening the duration of conscious exposure to CO2. Firstly, to assess the effect of N(2)O on the induction of anaesthesia in mice, 12 female C57Bl/6 mice were anaesthetized in a crossover protocol with the following combinations: Isoflurane (5%)+O(2) (95%); Isoflurane (5%)+N(2)O (75%)+O(2) (25%) and N(2)O (75%)+O(2) (25%) with a total flow rate of 3 l/min (into a 7 l induction chamber). The addition of N(2)O to isoflurane reduced the time to loss of the righting reflex by 17.6%. Secondly, 18 C57Bl/6 and 18 CD1 mice were individually euthanized by gradually filling the induction chamber with either: CO(2) (20% of the chamber volume.min-1); CO(2)+N(2)O (20 and 60% of the chamber volume.min(-1) respectively); or CO(2)+Nitrogen (N(2)) (20 and 60% of the chamber volume.min-1). Arterial partial pressure (P(a)) of O(2) and CO(2) were measured as well as blood pH and lactate. When compared to the gradually rising CO(2) euthanasia, addition of a high concentration of N(2)O to CO(2) lowered the time to loss of righting reflex by 10.3% (P<0.001), lead to a lower P(a)O(2) (12.55 ± 3.67 mmHg, P<0.001), a higher lactataemia (4.64 ± 1.04 mmol.l(-1), P = 0.026), without any behaviour indicative of distress. Nitrous oxide reduces the time of conscious exposure to gradually rising CO(2) during euthanasia and hence may reduce the duration of any stress or distress to which mice are exposed during euthanasia.     

Sensitivity of the Welfare Quality® broiler chicken protocol to differences between intensively reared indoor flocks: which factors explain overall classification?

There is a large demand for holistic welfare assessment systems that result in a singular balanced summary of welfare. The Welfare Quality® (WQ) broiler protocol summarizes 18 welfare measures into four principles (‘good feeding’, ‘good housing’, ‘good health’ and ‘appropriate behaviour’), which are then integrated into one overall category (‘excellent’, ‘enhanced’, ‘acceptable’ or ‘not classified’). But the protocol is time consuming which hampers implementation. Furthermore, WQ’s aim to assess animal welfare in a wide range of husbandry systems may decrease its ability to discriminate between flocks from the same system. We applied the protocol in the context of intensive indoor rearing to assess whether it discriminated sufficiently between flocks, could be shortened without losing essential information, and provided a balanced summary of welfare. The vast majority of the flocks (88%) received the same overall classification (acceptable) whilst all other flocks received an adjacent classification (enhanced), suggesting poor discriminative capacity. For 95% of the flocks overall classification was explained by two measures only (‘drinker space’ and ‘stocking density’). A system based on these two measures would reduce assessment time from 3.5 h to a few minutes. However, both measures’ validity can be questioned as they are risk factors for poor welfare rather than animal-based outcome measures and they suffer from methodological weaknesses. Furthermore, the possibility for such an extreme simplification raises doubts on whether the overall classification reflects a balanced summary of different welfare aspects. In line with this, overall classification was not affected by replacing single measures within the ‘good health’ and ‘appropriate behaviour’ principles with realistically attainable minima or maxima for intensively reared flocks. Even replacing either of these two principles entirely with their realistically obtainable minimum or maximum did not affect classification. Such insensitivity to change may discourage attempts to improve the welfare of intensively reared flocks when assessments are made based on the overall classification. This calls for an adjustment of the classification system, which is currently being developed by the Welfare Quality Network.     

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

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